Re: StrongARM tactics

Anthony Towns writes: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:21:46PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: >> I can do the analyzing, but what should I do with the results? > > Put them on a webpage so anyone can see them, and if you don't find > someone who'll give you an immediate response, track the issues over >

Re: StrongARM tactics

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> +pcsx: i386 # i386 >> assembly > > AFAICT, this is only because its Linux/Makefile forces CPU to ix86 > unconditionally. Write patch. At a minimum th

Re: StrongARM tactics

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Making "buildd admin" a purely administrative task while porters are > not even trusted to do a binary upload is not going to work because you > will never find volunteers accepting to work under theses terms. Thanks. My sentiment exactly. MfG

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 04:48:24PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:14:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be > > done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the > > problems tha

bugs.debian.org refusing mail?

Hi, I just got a strange response when I sent a mail to two addresses on b.d.o: The original message was received at Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:44:44 +0100 from [130.60.169.219] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 550 Administrative prohibi

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: > > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> +pcsx: i386 # > >> i386 assembly > > AFAICT, this is only because it

Re: bugs.debian.org refusing mail?

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:52:16AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Hi, > > I just got a strange response when I sent a mail to two addresses on b.d.o: > > The original message was received at Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:44:44 +0100 > from [130.60.169.219] > >- The following addresses had permanent

buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]

Le jeudi 08 décembre 2005 à 02:03 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Which translates here to: > > 1) Buildd admin should be people interested in supporting the port. > > 2) People that are going to support the port must get the responsibility. > > Which is great as a statement of principle, but

Re: Installation directory for modules

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:05:48AM +, John Talbut wrote: > When I run the Makefile below it installs the module in : > /lib/modules/$(KERNELRELEASE)/extra > As far as I can find out, this is the expected behaviour from the kbuild > Makefiles. > However, modprobe looks for modules in > /lib/

Re: Bug#339658: should not call update-modules for module-init-tools

On Dec 05, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, if you add a depmod call to update-modules then debhelper could > just run it and not worry about needing to run depmod. If OTOH you do > want to eventually remove update-modules from module-init-tools then > we will have to live with debhe

Re: bugs.debian.org refusing mail?

Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Weird, fortunately not too weird - I just sent the same mail again, and this time it has been accepted. > but why don't you ask the people who are dealing with debian.org > mail? Their address in [EMAIL PROTECTED] They have access > to things l

Re: bugs.debian.org refusing mail?

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:24:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Weird, > > fortunately not too weird - I just sent the same mail again, and this > time it has been accepted. Right, so transitional probably. > > but why don't you ask the p

Re: buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:40:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > As a result, no one can help with buildd maintenance as the current > buildd admins won't let anyone help them, however overloaded they can > be. They refuse to delegate any part of their powers because people > aren't skilled enou

Re: buildd administration

[Josselin Mouette] > I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four > years, there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd > administration. For four years, people responsible for these tasks > have refused help on these matters. For four years, everything that > w

Re: buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]

I don't know what's wrong but I think there is on principle, which shouldn't be forgotten. Try to understand first and then to be understood. I'd like to help, but may be I can't. Read Stephen Covey books. 2005/12/8, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:40:17AM +0100, J

Re: buildd administration

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:40:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four years, >> there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd >> administration. > > What problems are there to

Re: StrongARM tactics

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: > >> > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> +pcsx: i386# >> >>

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? > One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just > search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One > has to know by s

Re: buildd administration

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:40:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> and people aren't skilled enough because they aren't allowed to help. > > Er, did you even *read* this thread? We got on the topic of buildds because > *someone refused to help diagno

Re: buildd administration

Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Setting up a buildd system do not require extra privileges from the > Debian project, as far as I know. Any Debian developer with his > public key in the keyring can sign uploads. The only privileges Upload of autobuild packages from inofficial

Re: master.debian.org bounces your mail

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:07:36 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > >> I hope this is closer to a consensus... > > > Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:39:46PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > When an exim mailserver is really bogged down under mail load, attempts > can be made even less often. It's ben pointed out to me that my mail through master is also bouncing at times. I also have an IPv6 MX, so it could be r

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's on master. I've been watching it for about 5 minutes, and never > saw the load drop below 3.80-ish. > Could it be that master is simply imploding on the amount of mail > received? It's always been like that (if not worse). -- ,''`. : :' :

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:04:28PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Rescheduling a job that failed with a missing build-depends is the > buildd admins job. Only people with wanna-build access can do that. Correct, and the release managers don't consider this to be a problem at the moment. So

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:01:10PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Josselin Mouette] > > I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four > > years, there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd > > administration. For four years, people responsible for these tas

Re: {SPAM} Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of > > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to > > read, basically, the nee

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 01:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > I hope this is closer to a consensus... > Afraid not. This proposal basically creates a second class of people -- > those who we want to sign NDA's to be able to read stu

Re: {SPAM} Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > >> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of > >> debian-private, but restri

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:01:10PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Josselin Mouette] > > I started my implication in the project four years ago. For four > > years, there have been problems with keyring maintenance and buildd > > administration. For four years, people responsible for these tas

Re: buildd administration

Le jeudi 08 décembre 2005 à 14:38 +0100, Michael Banck a écrit : > Unfortunately, you do not seem to trust James' opinion on this, but why > do you not trust our beloved Release Manager, either, who said he knew > of no serious issues with buildd maintenance right now? Maybe because release manage

Bug#342547: ITP: asterisk-prompt-es -- Spanish prompts for the Asterisk PBX

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Victor Seva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: asterisk-prompt-es Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.example.org/ * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) Description : S

Re: buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]

Steve Langasek wrote: > Er, did you even *read* this thread? We got on the topic of buildds because > *someone refused to help diagnose build failures because they consider it the > buildd admin's job*. Maybe it's not entirely impossible that the other subthread starting at | Wonderful. Nice to

Re: buildd administration

Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just >> search for "buildd" on http://www.deb

Re: StrongARM tactics

2005/12/8, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Anthony Towns writes:What is required is abuildd-give-back package_version(or whatever you called the alias for wanna-build --give-back). Following this train of thought, wouldn't it be reasonable to have a control @ bui

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:35:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? > >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just > >> search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One > >> has

Bug#342571: general: Apache1.3 and mod-php4: getlastmod() is broken

Package: general Severity: normal getlastmod() returns always the current time, filemtime() works as expected. php.net says: >Apache and PHP have been compiled with the same value for >-DFILE_OFFSET_BITS Perhaps this is the reason? -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i

Processed: reassign 342571 to libapache-mod-php4

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 342571 libapache-mod-php4 Bug#342571: general: Apache1.3 and mod-php4: getlastmod() is broken Bug reassigned from package `general' to `libapache-mod-php4'. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance.

Re: buildd administration

Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:35:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? >> >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just >> >> search for "buildd" on http:

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thursday 08 December 2005 04:41 am, you wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: > > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> +pcsx: i386 # > >> i386 assembly > > > > AFAICT, this is only because its Linux/Makefile fo

Re: StrongARM tactics

Ryan Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > PCSX 1.6 does not compile with GCC4 when the ix86 flag is not specified, even > on i386. I don't know about amd64, but my other partially-ASM (using NASM > like PCSX) package (libopenspc) will not build on amd64, so I'm assuming that > the same is true

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 06:45:09PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> http://bugs.debian.org/342548 > >> Why hasn't that been done before? Where else should this be documented? > > Well, Steve wrote lately about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mails: > > "AIUI, the @buildd.debian.org addresses have a ridicul

Re: buildd administration

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Er, did you even *read* this thread? We got on the topic of buildds because > *someone refused to help diagnose build failures because they consider it the > buildd admin's job*. NO. We got on the topif of this because I said that I was not interes

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thursday 08 December 2005 01:44 pm, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Ryan Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > PCSX 1.6 does not compile with GCC4 when the ix86 flag is not specified, > > even on i386. I don't know about amd64, but my other partially-ASM (using > > NASM like PCSX) package (libopenspc)

circular (source) dependencies!?

I'm trying to build autoconf/automake on my semi woody... But that isn't going to well (to say the least). I really hate these two programs. It's always a mess to build them if you don't follow the latest and greatest (probably no faults to the maintainers though!)... Any idea how to get around t

Re: Mailing list administration - add default Mail-Followup-To automatically

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:36:34PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > When using the Debian mailing lists, please follow these rules: > > . When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a > > carbon copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly > > request to be co

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 03:00:58PM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's on master. I've been watching it for about 5 minutes, and never > > saw the load drop below 3.80-ish. > > > Could it be that master is simply imploding on the amount of mail >

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The fact that my primary MX is only available through IPv6, and that > this is the case for other people who're having problems too might > then be a better chance at being the problem. My primary MX is IPv6-only, too. I don't hav

Re: buildd administration

Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I think that people should choose theirselves what they think is the >> > best resource for them to find the needed information... ;) >> I do think that too, but in order to allow that those resources must be >> made public. I haven't found build

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

* Lionel Elie Mamane: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> The fact that my primary MX is only available through IPv6, and that >> this is the case for other people who're having problems too might >> then be a better chance at being the problem. > > My primary M

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:32:40PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > Feature requests and other things are always welcome! I can't know what you > > want until you tell it to me. ;) > Nothing - these the questions I was mainly interested in regarding > buildd's: > - is my package already built everyw

Re: buildd administration

Michael Banck wrote: >The main problem of the arm port is *not* the buildd maintenance, but >rather the lack of people fixing actual bugs, which is *not* the job of >the buildd admin but of the porters. Saying it doesn't make it true. In fact, people who have volunteered to diagnose bugs in the pa

Re: buildd administration

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > Perhaps it is time for a replacement buildd network, and a new > > delegation from the DPL for keyring maintenence? Anthony Towns wrote: > Whatever for, exactly? Transparency. You understand transparency, I know, since you practice a great deal of transparency in y

Re: buildd administration

CC:ing you because this is sufficiently important I want to make sure you notice that I'm actually answering what may have been a rhetorical question. >What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? No clearly-documented contact addresses for buildd administrators (as noted up

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

I can´t belive... this is true...2005/12/8, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Intel is so generous to provide Debian with ten notebooks (besidessome server hardware), which we would like to give to developersin developing countries who- are technically able,- are dedicated to Debian, - would be

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Lionel Elie Mamane: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> The fact that my primary MX is only available through IPv6, and >>> that this is the case for other people who're having problems too >>>

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

* Lionel Elie Mamane: >> You also have one IPv4-only MX, > > No, I don't. But Exim 4 thinks so: [EMAIL PROTECTED] router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp host capsaicin.mamane.lu [2001:888:19f0::2] MX=9 host capsaicin.mamane.lu [2001:888:19f0:2::2] MX=

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:57:58PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Lionel Elie Mamane: >>> You also have one IPv4-only MX, >> No, I don't. > But Exim 4 thinks so: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp > host capsaicin.mamane.lu [2001:888:19f0::2]

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:08:58PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > Intel is so generous to provide Debian with ten notebooks (besides > some server hardware), which we would like to give to developers > in developing countries who What exacly did you mean writing about 'developing countries'? r

Re: StrongARM tactics

Ryan Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 08 December 2005 04:41 am, you wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: >> > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> +pcsx: i386# >> >> i386 assembly >> > >> > A

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-09 00:30:09]: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:08:58PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > > Intel is so generous to provide Debian with ten notebooks (besides > > some server hardware), which we would like to give to developers > > in developing co

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes: > >> > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> +

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Lionel Elie Mamane: > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > >> The fact that my primary MX is only available through IPv6, and that > >> this is the case for other people who're having problems

Re: cvs loginfo configuration for alioth?

Hi, > > > I'm looking for a 'loginfo' file configuration that works > > > for alioth. > > > I thought I have found a solution few days ago, but when > > > I came back, it no longer seems to work correctly: > > > > > The script used in debian-gis repo (pkg-grass) works like a charm. > Feel fre

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

Andreas Schuldei wrote: * Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-09 00:30:09]: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:08:58PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: Intel is so generous to provide Debian with ten notebooks (besides some server hardware), which we would like to give to deve

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

Followups set to -vote; can we please keep this on the list that's designed for these discussions? On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:24:52AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > There's a lot of personal information inside debian-private, There is? I got 36 of 494 messages (7%) for the month I did, with an add

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:52:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > > Perhaps it is time for a replacement buildd network, and a new > > > delegation from the DPL for keyring maintenence? > Anthony Towns wrote: > > Whatever for, exactly? > Transparency. That's non-se

Re: cvs loginfo configuration for alioth?

It seems like folks have found good solutions for their problems already, but just for the hell of it, I thought I'd mention that I maintain a CVS commit reporting script mostly because the other ones I'd found didn't seem to do quite enough or were poorly documented. It's at:

thank GOD I found you! How do I get them?

iih

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > That's non-sensical. Everything the buildds do is logged pretty much > immediately onto http://buildd.debian.org/, which also provides long > running statistics on how effective the buildds are, and even a schedule > of what the buildds will be working on next. That tells

Re: Need pain pills?please tell me how w/out prescri.

 

Work-needing packages report for Dec 9, 2005

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 188 (new: 4) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 91 (new: 1) Total number of packages requeste