* Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 05:45]:
> It delays our releases in the sense that it affects our resources:
> - available maintainer and developer time,
You mean, we have some great people working as porters and also giving a
general helping hand, and we would loose them if we thro
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 06:20]:
> Security autobuilders are on their way. You could make the argument that if
> we only had a couple of architectures we wouldn't really need security
> autobuilders, but I think that automating everything that can be automated
> is a Good Thing
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64),
>
>But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which
>doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not carry it if they want
>to. Nor could this possibly
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:42:15AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ...
> >> if we have to look after arches that are *not really used*.
> >
> >All of whom have sai
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
> > that some installed versions are insufficient for the build?
>
> Because the current b
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler, then...
And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
resulting binaries a
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:46:37PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:30:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > There are small KDE applications that require most of the KDE dependency
> > chain to be installed, while on the other hand XFree86's build
> > dependency list is (rela
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
> at least version X else fail?
Yes, that's how it works currently.
Since this also makes
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:42PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Bastian Blank worked on a database that handles all these build-deps on the
> > central wanna-build replacement. The idea is to give out just those packages
> Even that sounds too complicated. Really, each buildd can work this out
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 Feb 2005 20:54:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - security response time (more builds to do)
>>
>>Which DSAs came out later than they should have because of this
>>supposed
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For your convenience, I quote the numbers here again along with a quick
> percentage calculation:
> files.downloaded percent
> i386 1285422 70.5079
> all 504789 27.6886
> powerpc17754 0.9738
> ia64
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64),
>>
>>But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which
>>doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Maybe we should pick up on Petter's suggestion of stricter buildd
> requirements.
> Maybe we should only build base and essential packages for the minor
> architectures [ after, apt-source is there for everybody to go further ]
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would it make sense to examine the queue to see if any packages have
> similar build dependencies and then move them to the top of the queue so
> they build immediately after the current one?
> or to re-sequence the queue to group package with similar build
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - cpu cycles (witness Wouter's request to compile big packages
> > rarely),
>
> So you're saying that if we dropped the mips buildd's we'd have more
> cycles for other archs?
N
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:51:16PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:42PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > Bastian Blank worked on a database that handles all these build-deps on
> > > the
> > > central wanna-build replacement. The idea is to give out just those
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:50:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> > then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
> > at least version
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Wouter. That sounds like a big improvement.
>
> By the way, does this duplicate the functionality of 'apt-get build-dep'?
Possibly. Sbuild, however, predates the implementation of 'apt-get
build-dep', so
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:22:37PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "Can" and "should" are different stories.
> > When there's a missing build-dep on one arch, it might make sense to stop
> > that package from being distributed for other archs, so they don't waste
> > their time on that.
> > You
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler, then...
> And a hell of a
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
>> > that some installed versions are insuf
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
>> > that some installed versions are insuf
Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
>> then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
>> at least version X else fail?
>
> Yes,
Hello,
During install my videocard is not detected by Debconf. It is a cheap
Nvidia compatible videocard what uses the "nv" driver.
How can I tell the Discover-developpers about this videocard?
With regards,
Paul van der Vlis.
BTW: This is from "lspci -vv"
-
:01:00.0 VGA compatible co
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
The idea is to cross-compile and native-compile _for_ _the_ _same_ _ta
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 14:01, John Hasler wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
>
> The i
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 15:15]:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> >> then check what you got? Because you can't
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
> > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' output to determine whether the right
> > version of a package is availa
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: poc
Version : 0.4.
Upstream Author : Manuel Odendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.bl0rg.net/software/poc/
* License : BSD
Description : MP3 streaming ser
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
>> > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' output to determine wh
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> thing to do, not having two divergent systems.
sbuild includes some centralized build-dependenc
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 18:00]:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> > listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> > thing to do, not having two diverg
|| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:15:39 +0100
|| Paul van der Vlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
pvdv> Hello,
pvdv> During install my videocard is not detected by Debconf. It is a cheap
pvdv> Nvidia compatible videocard what uses the "nv" driver.
pvdv> How can I tell the Discover-developpers about this vi
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 18:00]:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> > listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> > thing to do, not having two diverg
* Will Newton
| A suprising number of programs embed the current date, time, hostname etc. in
| their user visible version strings. The Linux kernel for example, does not
| compile identically twice unless you hack it slightly.
Even with the same preprocessed source?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> Or have I missed something important?
Yes. There are a jillion different machine code programs that do the
same thing and a compiler could generate any one of them in response
to the same source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
> > resulting binaries and compare those; it's not as if any difference
> > between the two compiled binaries would constitute an error...
>
> The idea is to cr
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I'll say differently. I've produced the last several sets of
> woody point release CD and DVD images. Each arch produced takes
> time. Reducing the sets produced would make it much easier/faster to
> get this done.
Does this delay release?
--
- Forwarded message from Lawrence Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Lawrence Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:36:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A Call to Action in OASIS
A Call to Action in OASIS
The free and open source software co
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:38:46AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Why not? Is there something non-deterministic in the compilation
> process?
>
> Ideally, version x of gcc should produce the same output natively
> as when cross-compiling.
>
> Or have I missed something important?
-frandom-s
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > - network bandwith (witness the discussion on mirror efficiency),
>
> Mirrors don't have to (and don't need to) copy all the archs. They
> can support whichever ones they want. Nor could this possibly slow
> release.
>
> > - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state
"Thaddeus H. Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Not private. Reply on-list if you wish.]
>
>> However, I do think that not including amd64 (while keeping mips and
>> friends) in the sarge release due to mirroring problems is ridiculous.
>
> Amen, brother.
>
>> ... packages are uploaded too fre
Petri Latvala wrote:
[snip]
> Also, the first 16 bytes will differ in an ELF format .o, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/09/msg00201.html
That's incorrect, strictly speaking. The first (magic) bytes have
to be identical, only the padding bytes could be different (but are
usually zer
Attin/Dear .
I would like to apply through this medium for your co-operation and to secure
an opportunity to invest and do joint business with you in your country.
I have a substantial capital i honourably intend to invest in your country into
a very lucrative business venture of which you are to
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:09 +0100
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simple perl script adding progress bar support
> > for GNU tar.
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd say this is way to small to justify a package for it. Did you try
> to contact the tar maintainer to get it included there?
>
Hello
Em Ter, 2005-02-22 Ãs 15:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
> > > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' out
Hi,
just an update about a small milestone we've taken.
Both current gnome and kde meta packages now have all their
dependencies fullfilled in the sarge tree. With recent reports of
successfull D-I installs with sarge we are now caught up with the
official release.
Our next step will be to get t
Hi,
> Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
> interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
> The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
> disable rp_filter. So add some rules to the firewall make sure noth
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
> > disable rp_filter. So add some rules to the firewall make sure nothing gets
> > into 127.0.0.0/8 unless it is a local packet.
>
> So, by this implication, if I use arping and
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:17:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, I'll say differently. I've produced the last several sets of
>> woody point release CD and DVD images. Each arch produced takes
>> time. Reducing the sets produced would make
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> files.downloaded percent
> i386 1285422 70.5079
> all 504789 27.6886
> powerpc17754 0.9738
> ia64 10111 0.5546
> sparc 3336 0.1830
> arm 850 0.0466
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:13:34AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Also: As far as the kernel is concerned, any local IP is local to *all*
> interfaces, and it will happly reply to it (ARP and so on) if allowed to.
> The rp_filter will often avoid trouble here, BUT routers often have to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: yzis
Version : 0.0-M4
Upstream Author : Mickael Marchand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others
* URL : http://www.yzis.org/
* License : GPL (programs) / LGPL (libs)
Descripti
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> So, by this implication, if I use arping and pretend to be 127.0.0.1
> to another host, that host will try to ping the network if I ping 127.0.0.1
> on the target host?
no, there are some obvious illegal addresses excluded.
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNS
Don Armstrong debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I
> > demonstrated the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five
> > other arches.
>
> You used package download results from one (1!) debian mirr
Adam Heath debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > files.downloaded percent
> > i386 1285422 70.5079
> > all 504789 27.6886
> > powerpc17754 0.9738
> > ia64 10111 0.5546
> > sparc 33
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> reports percent
> hurd-i386 1 0.0175
> kfreebsd-i386 1 0.0175
> ppc64 1 0.0175
> arm 2 0.0351
> mipsel 2 0.0351
> m68k3 0.0526
>
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:25:25 -0500
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > reports percent
> > hurd-i386 1 0.0175
> > kfreebsd-i386 1 0.0175
> > ppc64 1 0.0175
> > arm
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:25 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
[snip]
> Oops. You jumped from "second most common" to "second most important", as
> if they're synonymous. Maybe they are to some people, but that's not at all
> beyond de
Could it be possible to have md5sums for d-i ISOs available at
(http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer) ?
Regards
maykel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
62 matches
Mail list logo
