Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
> 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 reas
[cc to you - I don't know if you read the list]
On Friday 18 March 2005 17.22, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> As for example, it's been now around 7 years for me now using Linux and I
> do have a fair amount of knowledge now. It would be great if DD's here
> could harness the skills in "wannabe contr
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:23:18AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> 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 Linux developm
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > BTW, I am not sure this is really a good way to measure the use of an
> > > architecture, mainly because users could use a local mirror if they have
> > > a lot of machines of the same architecture. How about using popc
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:34:26AM +0200, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
> > Hi Pasi,
> > On Friday, 18 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > > Changes:
> > > valknut (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=high
> > > .
> > >* New upstream release (
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> > answered]
>
> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restr
On 18 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 bin
On Mar 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[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.
> So don'
El sÃb, 19-03-2005 a las 04:13 -0600, Bill Allombert escribiÃ:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised
> > > and
> > > answere
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> If we are going to require redundancy,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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
> > > > s
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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 v
> Yes, but the argument against cross-compiling has always been stronger
> - If you are compiling under an emulator, you can at least test the
> produced binaries under that same emulator, and you have a high degree
> of confidence that they work reliably (this is, if an emulator bug
> leads to gcc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
> issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
> amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
> u
Hi, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> There is nothing else changed in
> package than new source so I don't really know what else I could say.
You could say
* New Upstream release (Closes:#12345)
- No more frobnication (Closes:#23456)
- Fix random typos (Closes: #34567)
- Fix random data los
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:45PM +0100]:
> > And would a larger discussion at debconf'05 not have been more appropriate
> > than handing done a couple of taken decision disguised as proposal ?
> >
> > It is not too late for this yet, but there needs to be a real discussion
> >
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larg
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one
> another's feet,
I assume that that's a problem if the
Hi, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 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 >/p
martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:57:54PM +0100]:
> > The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to increase
> > their workload for etch on the assumption that nothing bad will come of it?
>
> No, I said we should stock the security team, which I meant to read
> as:
Steve Langasek dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800]:
> > There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain
> > architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be
> > built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable,
> > anyway, as a QA
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gruler
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Ian McIntosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://linuxadvocate.org/projects/gruler
* License : GPL
Description : a customizable sc
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ruby-zoom
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Laurent Sansonetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ruby-zoom.rubyforge.org/
* License : LGPL
Description : Ruby ZOOM A
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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 mirro
Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
> So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
> anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like "We use s390
> to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
> workstations they use; the software we use is ..
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
> subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them, and
> duplication is kept to a m
[Gunnar Wolf]
> The answer is simple:
For every problem there is a simple and obvious answer which just
happen to be wrong. I believe you ran into one of those. :)
> Not everybody can become a security team member, the required
> technical skills are quite high. There is a VERY high commitment
Hello,
My GPG was compromissed before Xmas and since then, I was unable to get
a new key. Two of my packages are getting full of bugs which I can fix and
close so I decided to orphan them and if I'm be able to get new
key in the future, I'll find new packages to mantain.
They are:
openwe
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 18:55 +0100, Sergio Rua wrote:
> My GPG was compromissed before Xmas and since then, I was unable to get
> a new key.
Bad thing. :( Hope you will get a new one soon.
> Two of my packages are getting full of bugs which I can fix and
> close so I decided to orphan them a
Scripsit Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> 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
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> 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
Scripsit Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To a certain degree, those would have been fixed if people
>> > build-depended on auto*, as they would have picked up fixed versions
>> > of the .m4 files.
>> But that has to be offset against the huge number of bugs that would
>> occur if we ran a
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Some people tend to have really large inboxes. I have had a number of
>> customers that have several GB inbox. They tend to get quite a lot
>> of attachments (reports etc) and do not have the time to delete mail.
>> It will grow quite fast.
> Ummm... An
I am taking this to -devel. Please remove -vote from all replies.
... and sorry for the late reply.
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.14.0826 +0100]:
> When the code is public, rtfm is the proper answer.
This answer seems logical to you and I. It is, however, not the
didact
Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
> probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> architectures that have a working installer, and th
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> > Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
> > probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> > architectures th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Di Pentima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gwp
Version : 0.3.6
Upstream Author : Lucas Di Pentima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gwp.lunix.com.ar
* License : GPL
Description : GNOME War Pad (GWP) is a
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Which delays are expected for etch, that are not only imposed by the
> > usage of testing for release purposes? [1]
>
> > I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
> > former method of freezing
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 09:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have se
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:37:05PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
> > This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> > having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 07:03:07PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There are two security teams in effect now. The debian/stable team,
> working to make sure the stable release of debian get security fixes
> as soon as possible. They get security warnings before the issues
> become public kno
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> TTBOMK, m68k has no such problem.
>
> TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd -- the most they
> generalley have in terms of buildd admin redundancy is that if the admin
> for a machine that has built a certain package is unavailable, another
> admin can was
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
>> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
>> subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them,
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
>> I think Sarge on ARM has the potential to greatly reduce the learning
>> curve for some kinds of embedded development, especially if Iyonix
>> succeeds in its niche (long live the Acorn!).
> So, I loo
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> I would like to see some stats showing on how many days in the last
> >> year an arch reached 0 needs-build. I highly doubt that any arch
> >> managed to do it every day troughout the last year.
> > You know why goals are
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather not
>> waste a few GB on duplicated files.
> This may be a stupid question, but if you already mirror full-monty, what
> would you gain by also mirrorin
> > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to
> > 2 or 3?
>
> - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while slower,
> low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain application
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
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 from writing software for embedded arm things, I can't
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being
>> > raised and answered]
>>
>> > > * Why is the pe
Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > > crosscompiling.
> >
> > Debian packages cannot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
> not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use fancier mirroring software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 08:21:18PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > A much faster solution would be to use dis
Matthew Garrett wrote:
This, uh, sounds very much like "We need to drop architectures, and so
we have come up with these criteria that will result in us dropping
architectures". Which is a reasonable standpoint to take, but which also
seems to imply that if 12 architectures manage to fulfil all the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> That'll work. _All_ distcc sends to the crosscompiler is preprocessed c
> code to be compiled into object code. So the source-code building widget
> is compiled remotely, run locally, and the results are sent to compile
> remotely.
Oh, I see now. I was
> Bug #289643 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version: it
> was a bug report complaining about the program failing to start. "New
> upstream version" has nothing to do with why this bug was closed.
Does valknut start now? Maybe new upstream version fixed that? I know changes
in
> You could say
> * New Upstream release (Closes:#12345)
> - No more frobnication (Closes:#23456)
> - Fix random typos (Closes: #34567)
> - Fix random data loss (urgent) (Closes: #45678)
>
Thanks, Matthias.
I will remember this next time. This is the way critique should be given. No
56 matches
Mail list logo
