On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:09:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on
> > > where I believe things are today.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
> > (unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
> > architecture requirement
> I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
> sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
This may have been a strategical error, yes.
For me, the Vancouver meeting goal was obviously the sarge release and
IMHO, they achieved their goal very
Hi Ingo,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > > >hooked into w-b to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hello, world,
> | - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> | required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
> ever su
> Are you happy with that?
People talking about Debian ? Sure.
"Press" misunderstanding issues, no, but this is not the first time.
Sure, we will have (we already have) a nice Internet rumour saying
"Debian drops most architectures". But, well, we have rumours about
nearly anything alors une de
Quoting Florian Zumbiehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi,
>
> now that the problems with my last bunch of bug reports on mostly "its"
> vs. "it's" mistakes some months ago seem to be solved, I've found another
> load of typos of the "a" vs. "an" flavor, about 110 in total.
please please please...for an
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > > > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > > > >team does: b
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:47 +0100, Christian Perrier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My personal concern now is avoiding to "throw out the baby with the
>bath's water" as we say in French.
Dropping the majority of our archictecture is exactly throwing out the
baby with the bath's water (we have the s
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> As Steve wrote
> | The reality is that keeping eleven
> | architectures in a releasable state has been a major source of work for
> | the release team, the d-i team, and the kernel team over the past year;
> | not to mention the time
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:59:55 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
>> It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
>> don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
>or they just have their reason
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:23:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAI
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 15:35]:
>> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> >> > Our goal is tha
Hi Aurélien,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Steve Langasek a écrit :
> >The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> >crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
> >the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is n
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:50, Anthony Towns wrote:
> cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> >>That's why it's posted on the lists now -- it never too late to get
> >>input into something in Debian; even after we've committed to
> >> something, we can almost always change our minds.
> >
> > er, sayin
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:04, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
> >
> > >> Do not expect mirror admins to run Debian, and to be willing to
> > >> pull smart mirroring tricks.
> > >
> > >What do they use
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Yes, I would like to reiterate that coordination between Martin Pitt, the
> > > Ubuntu kernel t
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schmitt) writes:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> >> pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
> >> *should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i38
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
>> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (
Sven Luther wrote:
> There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
>
> The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is not
> in the loop for getting advance advice on those problems, so we cannot build
> fixed versions until the vulnerability gets a
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:36, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, as long as the discussion is on dropping from the mirror network,
> yes, you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing
> altogether, isn't it ?
Quoting from the Nybbles proposal:
"[...] the list of release candidate
arc
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
> > sync, it increases the number of matching source packages that we need
> > to keep aro
On Monday 14 March 2005 20:07, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
> >> > of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support
> >> > (security response time). Therefore the N<=2 require
Hi Andreas!
You wrote:
> As Steve wrote
> | The reality is that keeping eleven
> | architectures in a releasable state has been a major source of work for
> | the release team, the d-i team, and the kernel team over the past year;
> | not to mention the time spent by the DSA/buildd admins and the
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams
> > say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump
> > up and prove them wrong by
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
>> > building these archs.
>>
>> As Bastian Blank sai
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:49, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have eternal security support for m68k
> (or whatever compiles the kernel most slowly), but if I don't get that
> choice, given "late" or "never" I'll happily take the former.
Then read the Nybbles proposal a
* Andreas Barth
| For example, the more architectures are included the longer the migration
| testing script takes. We are already at the limit currently (and also
| have out-of-memory issues from time to time). For example, currently we
| restrict the number of some hints to only 5 per day to k
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:21:21AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
> >
> > The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is
> > not
> > in the loop for getting advance advice on those pr
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I think the only criteria m68k fails are the "2 buildds have to
> suffice to keep up with etch" and the "10% download shares".
The second criterion is only for the mirror network, not for tier-1. Please
read the Nybbles proposal again:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > > that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
> > > sync, it inc
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> > - binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
>> > (required, among other reasons, for license
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of
really fast box with lots of RAM, and has
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:58, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On [14/03/05 19:05], David Schmitt wrote:
> > They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
>
> Pardon, but where do you see any public e-Mail from any of the "the
> people doing release, ftpmaster, etc." asking for help? I've yet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
>> immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
>> couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Projec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
>> team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
>> than IA64 last year.
>
> Which of these two architectures are y
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> I also have no objection to releasing stable later on some archs, or not
>> at all, of nobody from those archs works to do it.
>
>> I do object to preventing those archs from releasing st
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > > > that aren't being kept in sync.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
>> Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
>> done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there.
Bill Allombert a écrit :
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of
really fast box wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
>> immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
>> couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this
>> Pro
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
>> sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
>> I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competent,
>> active people wi
On Monday 14 March 2005 20:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> If it weren't for sarge blocking us we would have submitted multiarch
> patches as early as one year ago. Should we start submitting / NMUing
> them for _experimental_ now to get this change running and tested? Or
> should we keep waiting
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 10:50]:
> * Andreas Barth
> | For example, the more architectures are included the longer the migration
> | testing script takes. We are already at the limit currently (and also
> | have out-of-memory issues from time to time). For example, currently
Anthony Towns schrieb:
> Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>> The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all?
>
> AFAIK, the terminology is FCC/SCC for mirror split, and "release-arch"
> and "non-release-arch" for which arches get released as stable. So the
> question is "how do you release a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
> | Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
> | done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work the
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 00:00]:
> Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an "Architecture:" field
> instead. That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you
> want to achieve here.
Yes, that sounds well.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-bar
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:54AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Could you be more clear about this ? which issues are those ?
>
> Sven, Steve is referring to the first part of his mail, where he says that
> building from testing will lose "
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> >So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always
> >been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about
> >their corner of the
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:58:44 +0100, Andreas Barth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello, world,
Hello, Andi.
Nice to hear from you.
>Please allow me another remark: That meeting didn't finalize the release
>goals for etch. We talked about some of course - like we do on IRC quite
>often, but we didn'
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian developers,
>
> It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
> wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
> to run the testing scripts.
>
> Debian certainly has enough goodwi
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elsewhere I believe Steve mentioned, that earlier versions had tier-1 ==
> ftp.d.o, but that this was dropped
Yes, although it requires thorough reading, this is what the Vancouver
proposal seems to say.
>(exactly because of arches like s390 who
> sho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder also, do we still not have some sun donated sparc box running part of
> our infrastructure ? How will that stay if we drop sparc support ?
According to db.d.o:
- auric: RAID is dead (and auric is ba
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:10, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > towards "making Debian", and the ftpmasters are doing a decent chop of
> > things too.
>
> Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
> (which is the case) and great peopl
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Julien BLACHE wrote:
For $DEITY's sake. Will you please understand that the Ubuntu folks
totally failed to inform their fellows about what was going on ? And
at the time, there was no Canonical website, no Ubuntu website. Only a
handful of patches up on no-name-yet.
I think we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
> > serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only
> > tagged with a SCC arch s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, the architecture handling is controversial. Fine...this will
> probably delay etch more than we would like. But could we please focus
> on releasing sarge first? By focus, I also mean avoidn wasting
>
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
> > cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
> > out of there to provide serious supp
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
> > >
> > > It is the lack of any possibility of a stable rel
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:58:44 +0100, Andreas Barth
>
>>I was asked quite often via IRC what the reasonings for this kind of
>>proposal were. I'll answer the reasons from the release point of view - but
>>please remember that there are also ftp-masters/mirror
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> >> I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
> >> immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
> >> couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
> > *blink*. Are
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 03:09, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Soon everyone loves you, and you get a huge userbase, and hit 10% of
> i386+amd64 downloads or five times powerpc's current userbase or so, and
> say "I wanna be on ftp.d.o!!" Then you get moved across over a month or
> so, and become a "tier-1
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
> Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
> that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right no
* Andreas Barth
| Well, that was one of the examples where we pay a price for more
| architectures. Of course, the testing migration script is not all, and
| this problem can be solved, but I think we should not forget that we pay
| a price - even if at the end, we think the price is acceptable.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:28:38 +1100
> Source: vile
> Binary: xvile vile-filters vile vile-common
> Architecture: all i386 powerpc source sparc
> Version: 9.4-r1
thanks. For 9.5, the s
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
> ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
> connections that are implied by the activation of another build queue...
Is there an underlying reason why th
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> Mark Brown wrote:
>> Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
>> manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
>> added by d-i?
> It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and stable.
The proposal says that s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include
> > * Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > > I'd propose to use a less "disc
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, David Schmitt wrote:
And if the security team is not able to support those arches as-is, someone
will have to step up and do the work. Overly long delays for security updates
also diminish the usefulness of $arch.
I guess I missed the "Call for help on security issues on archit
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:58:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
> > starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that
>
> That doesn't.
> >
> > I'm willing to provide an OpenVPN tunnel to an SMTP server for any DD who is
> > unable to find alternate lodgings, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
>
> I can offer something as well - I would probably lean towards just
> auth+ssl instead of over VPN, but it's up to you. I just
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 02:55 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello Debian developers,
> >
> > It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
> > wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
> >
On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
>>> Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
>>> done to begin with, nothing about who works or doe
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It is not unstable that I am (most) worri
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
> >> team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I would add as for the core set architecture:
>> - there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
>> architecture.
> This gets a little tricky for non-RC architectures, because if it's not
> already (or currently) a released archite
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
> released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
> better options than trying to build out of testing.
Building stable once it is released does look indeed li
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
> > > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
> > Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:04:53PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm willing to provide an OpenVPN tunnel to an SMTP server for any DD who
> > > is
> > > unable to find alternate lodgings, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only
> > > one.
> >
> > I can offer something as well - I would
* Christian Perrier [Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:24:57 +0100]:
> Indeed, typo and spell corrections should not need translation updates
> and affected translations can certainly be unfuzzied.WHEN ONE
> KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS CLEANLY...:-)
I've never had to to such thing, but I've wondered from time t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Why they don't ask for help?
>> >
>> > They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
>>
>> Yes, we are. There are enough interested people here to replace the
>> current people in charge.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:38:51AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 10:50]:
> > Debian has a fairly big chunk of cash lying about. If we have
> > problems doing testing migration because of not enough hardware, this
> > is something I think we should spen
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:55]:
> I wonder if we could simply use the current support in britney for
> declaring that an architecture isn't keeping up to date and that any
> problems with it shouldn't block the rest of testing.
In that case, it might be better in the long term t
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
> > autobuilding and do it themselves; all the software is free software.
[..]
> We did that last year f
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:47:37AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
> > ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
> > in-development po
Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Having said this, this all doesn't exclude the possibility for a
> non-release arch to have some "testing" which can be (mostly) in sync with
> the release architectures testing - just that if it breaks, the release
> team is not forced anymore to hold
> | - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> | required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
> ever suffered from buildd backlogs. :)
>
> We want that all unstable packages are dir
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > With the new proposal of de facto dropping m68k support, I'm this -><- close
> > to recommend to Roman, that he better should invest his time into other
> > projects, because Debian wouldn't appreciate his work to bring up another
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
> did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
> architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
> everyone turned on a platt
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
> > > autobuilding and do it thems
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
> > did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
> > architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
> > everyone turned on a pl
Hi,
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:40]:
> * Andreas Barth
> | (And, BTW, newraff is a quite mature box. Of course, there is always
> | more and better hardware available, but newraff is already a very good
> | machine. And, we want to give the testing migration script more tasks
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:11:11 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In the long run, it might be even possible to get along with the stable
>sources alone, plus a second, tier-2-specific diff.gz - if I'm not
>mistaken it is planned to enable dpkg to work with a more flexible
>format for so
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:54:51 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
>> The problem is that it is extremely hard to be allowed to do any work
>> for Debian, and I think that should change. I know of two core teams
>> in Debian which have mor
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 13:45]:
> > | - the release architecture must have successfully compiled 98% of the
> > | archive's source (excluding architecture-specific packages)
> > well, that's just an "the architecture is basically working", so that we
> > don't get to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> >Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
> >manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
> >added by d-i?
> It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-update
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:45]:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
> > ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
> > connections that are implied by the activation o
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
[quoting Andreas Barth]
>> | - the release architecture must have successfully compiled 98% of the
>> | archive's source (excluding architecture-specific packages)
>> well, that's just an "the architecture is basically working", so that we
>>
On 15 Mar 2005 12:01:40 GMT, Michael Ablassmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By destroying the Project ? Interesting approach.
>
>As this is just a _proposal_, you are free to suggest alternative
>approaches on how to solve the Problems the
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:17:59 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> > Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
>> > cold. Users who choose Debi
1 - 100 of 381 matches
Mail list logo
