Hi,
* Lennert Buytenhek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050925 11:32]:
> So far we have (for sarge):
> - patches for apt, build-essential, cdrdao, dpkg, gcc, glibc, kaffe,
> libsdl, linux-kernel-headers, ltrace, makedev, mozilla, strace and
> util-linux to teach their config scripts/files et al. about th
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 09:11:55AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > We are keeping patches[7] for the armeb port separate, and are ready to
> > contribute them now, or at any future time that is more appropriate.
> > Another chicken-and-egg - are package maintainers expected to accept
> > patch
On Thursday 22 September 2005 11.15, Debian-armeb Porting Team wrote:
> We are keeping patches[7] for the armeb port separate, and are ready to
> contribute them now, or at any future time that is more appropriate.
> Another chicken-and-egg - are package maintainers expected to accept
> patches for
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 15.30, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[arch release criteria]
> Personally, I find the list of requirements sensible, and very
> understandable after the clarifying rounds on the lists. This colors
> my view of the discussion.
AOL!!1!
The only thing I'd modify is the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:15:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> > graphics/gem_1:0.90.0-17: Dep-Wait by buildd_m68k-kiivi
>> > [optional:out-of-date]
>> > Dependencies: libjack0.80.0-0 (>= 0.99.0)
>> > Previous state was Building until 2005 A
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:15:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:52:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > And sure, other buildd maintainers occasionally set a bogus dep-waits, but
>> > it seems to be m68k where I most
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:12:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Then again, maybe the m68k buildd maintainers do have time to
> periodically review stale dep-waits that they've set, to check them
> for correctness; that would be a pleasant surprise.
We do this, but it gets deprioritized when the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:15:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > I still believe this definition is far too strict (without being precise).
> > > You can't say, you have to be 98% uptodate without saying what you
> > > understand by "being uptodate". As already outlined during the last
> >
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:22:27 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's not only "must have 50 users" but more a "must have 50 users that do
>stuff on those machines".
Dormant accounts do not qualify as "users", I think.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
Hi,
* Debian-armeb Porting Team ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050922 14:26]:
> On 9/21/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These criteria do _not_ control addition of an architecture to unstable,
> > but rather apply to architectures which the ftp-masters have accepted
> > into unstable and ar
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 06:45:35PM +0930, Debian-armeb Porting Team wrote:
> We are keeping patches[7] for the armeb port separate, and are ready to
> contribute them now, or at any future time that is more appropriate.
> Another chicken-and-egg - are package maintainers expected to accept
> patch
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:15:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:52:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And sure, other buildd maintainers occasionally set a bogus dep-waits, but
> > it seems to be m68k where I most frequently have to ask for their removal...
>
> W
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Before you talk about the color of the car could we maybe first say
> what kind of car we are building?
>
> What I mean is that there are several issues overlapping here and you
> are attacking the last and least urgent issue first.
Well, it is t
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> It has been discussed for a while already. While we have release
> criteria for packages, up until now we don't have any for the
> architectures. However, decisions made about an architecture affect
> both our users (and developers) and the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 06:45:35PM +0930, Debian-armeb Porting Team wrote:
>
> We *really* need to be hooked into the buildd system to be able to
> automatically build the rest of the stable, testing and unstable
> releases. This is our top-most priority, and we hope to get help on
> this point f
[Debian-armeb Porting Team]
> However, how does one get "armeb" recognised as a valid option for
> the graphs on http://popcon.debian.org? Will simply sending in
> valid survey results with armeb as the architecture cause the graphs
> on that page to list armeb separately?
Yes. The url to the po
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:52:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> > users should be counted?
> > Who has to show those numbers? The users? The porters?
>
Re: Petter Reinholdtsen in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally, I find the list of requirements sensible, and very
> understandable after the clarifying rounds on the lists. This colors
> my view of the discussion.
AOL.
(Though I would like to see something like "at least N+1 buildd
_admins_" added
On 9/21/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These criteria do _not_ control addition of an architecture to unstable,
> but rather apply to architectures which the ftp-masters have accepted
> into unstable and are targetting testing and the next stable release.
> In other words, an archit
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> users should be counted?
> Who has to show those numbers? The users? The porters?
"someone". That someone is probably a porter by definition, I'd say.
>
"Ingo Juergensmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The proposal make some very exact guidelines like the 98% rule whereas
> it is very unprecise in other regards. I find this quite irrating and
> thus asking for clarification.
Actually, the 98% rule is not in the proposal. It was given as a
possibl
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 17:05 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I'm starting to suspect you do not trust the release team nor the
> > porters to make good judgement [...]
^^^
> Nono... of course not!
> It's just my personal experience tha
Quoting Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050921 16:53]:
> > What about such ports like m32r? Some embedded devices might run that port,
> > but the user doesn't even know about which arch he's using nor that he's
> > using Debian and certainly not that h
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
>> As I tried to say: there need more exact quidelines for
>> this. Currently they are very vague in my eyes.
> You failed to say why the guidelines need to be more exact. In my
> view, the guidelines are good enough. This is probably colored by th
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050921 16:53]:
> What about such ports like m32r? Some embedded devices might run that port,
> but the user doesn't even know about which arch he's using nor that he's
> using Debian and certainly not that he is intended to give a "hey, i'm using
> that port
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:28:07PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:22:27PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > That's not only "must have 50 users" but more a "must have 50 users that do
> > stuff on those machines".
> > See, that's the problem, when you don't defin
[Ingo Juergensmann]
> As I tried to say: there need more exact quidelines for
> this. Currently they are very vague in my eyes.
You failed to say why the guidelines need to be more exact. In my
view, the guidelines are good enough. This is probably colored by the
fact that I trust the good judge
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:37:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > | * Developer availability: The architecture must have a
> > > |developer-available (i.e. debian.org) machine that contains the
> > > |usual development chroots (at least stable, testing, unstable).
> > > This criterion
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:22:27PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> That's not only "must have 50 users" but more a "must have 50 users that do
> stuff on those machines".
> See, that's the problem, when you don't define those rules exactly: what
> qualifies for a "user" - how often needs the use
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:46:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Well, I'm already running popcon on my two m68ks, but that doesn't say much
> > about how many users are using that machines, as you state yourself. ;)
> Well, it's up to the porters to count the users, but of course, if you
> stat
[Kalle Kivimaa]
> It's actually pretty easy. Count the number of posters that seem to
> disagree. If this number is over half of the current developer
> count, then yes, a majority of the developers are in
> opposition. What you _cannot_ do is say "because over 50% of the
> people participating in
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess that depends on the viewpoint of the reader what the results
> were. It is hard to tell if there is a vocal minority making a lot of
> noise, or if there is a majority disagreeing with the criteria.
It's actually pretty easy. Count the num
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050921 15:28]:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:19:16PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Ingo Juergensmann]
> > > Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> > > users should be counted?
> > Two ideas.
> > - Get them to inst
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050921 15:25]:
> Le mardi 20 septembre 2005 à 23:41 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > For that reason, we discussed in multiple meetings, together with porters,
> > ftp-masters and other people more than once how the criteria should
> > look. Also, there wa
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050921 14:54]:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:41:13PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > | * Developer availability: The architecture must have a
> > |developer-available (i.e. debian.org) machine that contains the
> > |usual development chroots (at leas
[Josselin Mouette]
> This has been indeed discussed to death. The result of the
> discussion seems to be that a large majority of the developers
> doesn't agree with all your criteria.
I guess that depends on the viewpoint of the reader what the results
were. It is hard to tell if there is a voca
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:19:16PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
> > Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> > users should be counted?
> Two ideas.
> - Get them to install popularity-contest. This will make their
>machine show up o
Le mardi 20 septembre 2005 à 23:41 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> For that reason, we discussed in multiple meetings, together with porters,
> ftp-masters and other people more than once how the criteria should
> look. Also, there was more than one discussion on debian-devel. [1, 2]
This has be
[Ingo Juergensmann]
> Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> users should be counted?
Two ideas.
- Get them to install popularity-contest. This will make their
machine show up on popcon.debian.org, and we would assume there are
users of the given machin
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:41:13PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Now, looking more into details, the criteria are:
> | * Availability:
> | The architecture needs to be available for everybody, i.e.
> The reason for this should be obvious
The requirement of "available as new" has been dropped
40 matches
Mail list logo
