On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:37:11PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> > are not going to be left out in the cold.
> I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ig
On Friday 18 March 2005 07:27, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
> > to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
> > of it, but it'd be trivial t
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > All the stuff is on scc; how do we transfer it back? Will it be easy,
> > or a major obstacle?
> There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
> from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:00:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Both of these are plausible; the difference is whether you autobuild
> > from unstable or testing. I would prefer the former, which means your
> > former case.
>
> Autobuilding from testing won't work well AFAICS, as it introduces
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>I would really like to see some real use cases for architectures that
> >>want this; I'd like to spend my time on things that're actually useful,
> >>not random whims people have on lists -- and at the m
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 17-Mar-05, 01:01 (CST), Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * The ability for an interface to receive, by default, only traffic that
>> is destined for that interface. (Non-promiscuous mode; promiscuous mode
>> availability is
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
> * martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> > then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
>
> Because than the security te
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
> That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
> a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
> correct, it's likely not going to be in effect ever.
and if we have different versions
> Except the possibility to profit from the release team's efforts,
> and to create an actually supported release. It is not reasonable
> to believe a small porter team can do security updates for a
> unstable snapshot when a task of similiar size already overloads
> the stable security team.
>
N
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:18:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
> > from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as Colin
> > Watson points out
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:22:31 +0100, martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
>> That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
>> a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
>> corr
> Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a much
> better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and
> experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer.
>
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
> Always remember that the main r
also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1053 +0100]:
> It is, however, widely considered a feature that a package has the
> same version on all released arches. I'd vouch for keeping that
> requirement.
Are we really to expect a lot of disparities if we loosen the
requirement?
--
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:21:17AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
> > * martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> > > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> > > then freeze testing as b
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Except the possibility to profit from the release team's efforts,
>> and to create an actually supported release. It is not reasonable
>> to believe a small porter team can do security updates for a
>> unstable snapshot when a task of similiar
Sven Luther wrote:
I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
anyway. If there aren't any users, then there's no much point doing any
development. Are there any users? If so, what are they doing?
Cheers,
aj
--
T
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best embedded
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best embedded
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1145 +0100]:
> > This is a good point, but I wonder whether it should remain
> > a show-stopper. Wouldn't the logical solution be to stock up the
> > security team?
>
> The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to incr
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:37:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > I wonder if we could change Debian's attitude to NEW rejection like has
> > happened with NMUs -- that having your package rejected isn't the end of the
> > world, it's just something that happens.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:31:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Bollocks. It's the clever people who usually end up overworked, because
> they can do more "critical" things with their time.
Apparently you don't know what smileys are for.
> Perhaps you could demonstrate your cleverness by provi
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:06:10AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
>
> That would be one of the things that maintainers have gotten wrong in the
> past, yes.
So ?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, the release team are not the only Debian developers with credibility,
> surely? Not everything needs to go through us; if the project has the will
> to do stable releases of these architectures, in spite of the release team
>
On Friday 18 March 2005 11:35, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a
> > much better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and
> > experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer.
>
> I have no idea
David Schmitt wrote:
>1) people realize that $arch won't be REGULAR for etch because the
>people working on a release don't want to handhold it through testing
>and autobuilding is too slow to properly keep up.
Even not considering the problem I see with the Vancouver proposal
regarding Debian iden
On 10232 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Would you be happy if the ftpmasters put everything on auto-veto if there
>> was nobody available to monitor the auto-new queue for a few days?
> If the NEW queue handling people can't get the job done, then they should
> recruit more people to help out o
On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they
are not allowed into unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that everyone who
is interested in
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> None of those are enough to justify effort maintaining a separate
> testing-esque suite for them; but surely someone has some better
> examples they can post...
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the work of maintaining
Hello Marc,
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 13:42]:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:51:45 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 21:45]:
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:02:16 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >* Marc Haber <[E
* Marc Haber wrote:
> Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just asked too to be a part of the maintainer team for dpatch.
>
> I see. Let me summarize: You post your offer to adopt the package 60
> seconds before another team which has already collaborated announces
> taking over the package
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> > How is the layout of scc.debian.org planned to look like? Separate
> > .scc.debian.org (or scc.debian.org//...) archives or a
> > single one which needs partial mirroring tricks? Will arch:all be
> > duplicated there or will it need to be fetched from some other mir
> And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Just for the record, not to anyone directly, it just fits here:
This is not how it works. Offering something randomly and then sitting
back waiting, later maybe complaining offer wasnt accepted.
The way I got into the ftpte
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> That leaves mips (big-endian), hppa, alpha, and s390. Not so much
> doorstops as space heaters; some people might put ia64 in this
> category too.
FWIW, the distinction between mips and mipsel isn't that clear-cut.
All MIPS CPUs (except the R8000) can run in big
* Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Marc Haber wrote:
> > Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I just asked too to be a part of the maintainer team for dpatch.
> >
> > I see. Let me summarize: You post your offer to adopt the package
> > 60 seconds before another team which has already collabora
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello People,
It was really a good time going through the logs of the Debian DPL Debate.
I was quite happy that the organizers brought up the issue of
"Under-represented Groups In Debian".
I've been thinking of contributing to Debian for a long tim
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:21:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>...
> Catchup has started to make some progress; the current disaster buildd
> seems to be arm, now that mipsel has mostly caught up and s390 has
> turned around. So long as at least a single buildd arch is having
> trouble, we
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > > AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from stable
> > > sources for a scc or unofficial port. And - if I read the conditions on
> > >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
> will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
> installer rewrite planned for etch this shouldn't be a big issue.
This is still an issue. Jo
Anthony Towns schrieb:
Sven Luther wrote:
I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
anyway. If there aren't any users, then there's no much point doing any
development. Are there any users? If so, what are they
Hello Ritesh,
* Ritesh Raj Sarraf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-18 17:55]:
[...]
> I've been thinking of contributing to Debian for a long time since I started
> using it. The problem is that I've not been able to find a good comprehensive
> documentation on "Contributing to Debian" yet.
I thi
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
> > will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
> > installer rewrite plan
On 18-Mar-05, 05:22 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
>
> Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
> anyway.
I think he's talking about people developing products for those
archs, not Debia
On 18-Mar-05, 03:28 (CST), Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Linux fails this. Even with forwarding disabled, it will accept packets
> >for an address on interface A via interface B.
>
> Enable rp_filter and it does reject such packets.
>
> echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/${dev}/rp_fil
On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
> is update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs,
> procps, ppp, pppconfig, sets
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
[snip]
> At the moment, the only use cases I'm confident exist are:
[snip]
> arm: We're developing some embedded boxes, that won't run Debian
> proper, but it's really convenient to have Debian there to bootstrap
> them trivially.
D
Hello
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:28:39AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> hi martin,
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:23:51PM +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> > sounds really good. How do your scripts relate to the db management
> > scripts provided by wwwconfig-common, maintained by Ola Lundqvist
> > <[
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:04:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > (This might be a topic without a possible conclusion!)
> > > Funny, but although I'd say "an HTML file" or "an HTTPS url" or
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, we are not expecting the DSA people to keep the system
> > secure; SCC non-released arches don't need to provide developer
> > machines.
> I do not believe that this is limited to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> > because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
> > is update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:19:14PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > At the moment, the only use cases I'm confident exist are:
> [snip]
> > arm: We're developing some embedded boxes, that won't run Debian
> > proper, but it's
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:39:10PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > "libraries transitioned" is a big point against testing:
> >
> > Transitions of API-compatible libraries are a
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:31:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> David Schmitt wrote:
> >1) people realize that $arch won't be REGULAR for etch because the
> >people working on a release don't want to handhold it through testing
> >and autobuilding is too slow to properly keep up.
> Even not co
Hello Debian-developer,
I have a modest proposal to reduce the burden of the multiple
architectures on the Release team. This is based on the following
assumptions:
I) The main problem is missing builds that slow down propagation to
testing.
II) Such problems are linked to buildd breakages that
Hi Pasi,
On Friday, 18 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> Changes:
> valknut (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=high
> .
>* New upstream release (Closes: #289643, #269952, #265284, #270096,
> #286234)
is there any reason for not giving some more explanation, when closing
bugs with urgency=high and only list
Bill Allombert wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:19:14PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
>>
>> [snip]
>> > At the moment, the only use cases I'm confident exist are:
>> [snip]
>> >arm: We're developing some embedded boxes, that won't run
Matthias Urlichs dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:14:50PM +0100]:
> It won't work that well for slower architectures, for the very simple
> reason that compiling everything would take a long time.
>
> m68k (as the admittedly extreme example) doesn't have ten buildd boxes
> just because we feel like i
Hi,
I haven't followed as thoroughly as I would have liked the recent
verborrhea in the list regarding the Vancouver proposal. Anyway, I'd
like to raise a point that I brought up during Debconf3, in the light
of the changes that we are now facing.
Most (although not all) of the architectures faci
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Nowadays, an i386 system emulating a m68k (using either UAE or
Basilisk2) is at least comparable to the fastest m68k system ever
produced. I have worked with both emulators, and both seem completely
safe - Yes, I know we cannot run Debian on a regular UAE because of
the lack of
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't followed as thoroughly as I would have liked the recent
> verborrhea in the list regarding the Vancouver proposal. Anyway, I'd
> like to raise a point that I brought up during Debconf3, in the light
> of the changes t
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> source.
As a mirror operator, I think that this sucks. Badly.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.a
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective.
I was kind-of hoping it wasn't even that: we've been supporting all
these architectures for over two years now; are they really completely
useless?
I think Sarge on ARM has the po
Henning Makholm wrote:
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the work of maintaining a separate testing-esque
suite. If the porters want to do the work they should be allowed to do
it.
If they don't need any support from anyone else, they're welcome
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver dijo [Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:41:46AM +0100]:
> > Nowadays, an i386 system emulating a m68k (using either UAE or
> > Basilisk2) is at least comparable to the fastest m68k system ever
> > produced. I have worked with both emulators, and both seem completely
> > safe - Yes, I
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> crosscompiling.
Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
because they very frequently need to execute the compiled binaries as
well as just compile them.
[cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
answered]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which
Joel Aelwyn dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:39:48PM -0700]:
> Consider:
>
> * SCC systems have buildds.
>
> * Buildds must be network accessible.
>
> * The first rule of securing a machine exposed to the wilds is "Deny by
> default, allow by need".
>
> Therefore, a box which does not provide ba
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that any Debian architecture needs to provide basic networking
> facilities, but I don't think firewalling is a real requirement. Yes,
> of course, we expect users to actually _run_ this architecture, and
> they will probably be connected to the ne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> > source.
> As a mirror operator, I think
Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, I looked at the website, but all I can see are expensive PCs that
> happen to have an arm chip. Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN,
> use them to develop software for arm chips, and then just follow
> unstable or run non-security-supported snapshots. Apart f
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to get one or two to run as buildd and/or developer
> machine ? Being stuck with netwinder when XScale are available is
> a bit like trying to build Debian on a 586.
There's no shortage of ARM hardware available to Debian, but so far it
Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
> This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said:
> "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be
> compiled on every arch; the fact that it might not be useful there does
> not justify excluding it
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 18:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > D) How will the exercise of a veto be communicated to the Project?
>
> An announcement mail with Subject: Vancouvered: $arch, of course.
>
Damn, I love this list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
> ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
> ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be released with sarge), there is a
> general feeling that twelve architectures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: 855resolution
Version : 0.3-1
Upstream Author : Alain Poirier
* URL or Web page : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/apoirier/
* License : public domain (see below)
Description : res
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> >I'm asking because of Lawrence Rosen's ``A Call to Action in
> >OASIS'', which I saw in today's LWN [1]. Apparently OASIS is
> >adopting a new intellectual-property policy that would allow
> >standards based on patent-encumbered technology, which
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:19:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> > builds are *not* equally urgent,
> Of course not, that is exactly my point.
> But from the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:35:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
> > This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said:
> > "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be
> > compiled on every arch; the f
77 matches
Mail list logo
