Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:22:24AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > If a package is failing to build or to function on some architecture, > > your job as that package's maintainer is see if it can be fixed (talking > > to porters and/or upstream if it's

Re: Co-maintainers sought

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:42:25AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > I seek co-maintainers for: > > mwavem > thinkpad, tpctl > resolvconf > I got a couple of thinkpads, so i could be a good candidate for thinkpad related things if you agree. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Re: Co-maintainers sought

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:01:03AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:42:25AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > > I seek co-maintainers for: > > > > mwavem > > thinkpad, tpctl > > resolvconf > > > > I got a couple of thinkpads, so i could be a good candida

Re: Co-maintainers sought

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 09:09:48AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:01:03AM +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 01:42:25AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > > > I seek co-maintainers for: > > > > > > mwavem > > > thinkpad, tpctl > > >

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

Christian Perrier wrote: > We (Debian developers and contributors) certainly all agree on this > (or, at least, the vast majority of us). Why then being so complicated? If there is a candidate in a country doomed by US export laws, 'export' the notebook first to someone other and ship if afterward

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:52:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> > >I also see the keyring's been updated earlier this week, including >> > >both a replacement key for Horms from late last month, and Chi

Re: buildd administration

Le samedi 10 décembre 2005 à 11:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:56:24PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > How many developer resignations will you need to understand inaction > > from people at key positions sucks the fun out of things in a worse way? > > Yeah, thre

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 12:47:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:27:10 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Where should I best complain for your NM application to be > > cancelled? > > Err, so if a NM candidate speaks as openly as some DD's do, > t

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 09:18:28AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:22:24AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > BTW: is there a way to get build failures by mail? especially from the > > architectures which are not visible on buildd.debian.org/PTS like hurd and > > bsd. To

${Source-Version} without revision

Hello. Is there any variable similar to ${Source-Version} which would allow me to use version of the upstream sources in control file? I have packages where program and data are distributed separately and usually there are no need to change data package, but using: Depends: foo-data (= ${Source-

Re: ${Source-Version} without revision

Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello. > > Is there any variable similar to ${Source-Version} which would allow me to > use version of the upstream sources in control file? > > I have packages where program and data are distributed separately and > usually there are no need

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality > > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t. > > compilation time and memory co

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:33:11AM +0100, Heiko Müller wrote: > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t. > compilation time and memory consumption and in many cases even fails > to compile our cod

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 02:40 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant > > effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same > > standards. Which, as far as I can see, does

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:24:00 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >An excellent example of this is the publication of the NEW queue. Now >that everyone can see the NEW queue, I don't see any of the big public >criticism about slow processing. I have to disagree here. Things have

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:40:11 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant >> effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same >> standards. Which, as far as

Re: ${Source-Version} without revision

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Use dpkg-parsechangelog along with sed to get the upstream from > the debian version. > Then use dpkg-gencontrol -VUpstream-Version=$(upstream_version) Yes, something like (makefile syntax): # Version information VERSION?=$(shell dpkg-parsechangelog |

Re: apt PARALLELISM

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:09:39AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > I doubt very much so parallel downloads will be added to apt. Could be added Release-file based. Parallelize only unrelated pools, and disabled by default to avoid conflict wiht apt-proxy (if any). ie: Debian and Foo v

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

la, 2005-12-10 kello 10:39 +0100, Daniel Baumann kirjoitti: > Christian Perrier wrote: > > We (Debian developers and contributors) certainly all agree on this > > (or, at least, the vast majority of us). > > Why then being so complicated? If there is a candidate in a country > doomed by US export

Re: apt PARALLELISM

This one time, at band camp, Cosimo Alfarano said: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:09:39AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > I doubt very much so parallel downloads will be added to apt. > > Could be added Release-file based. > Parallelize only unrelated pools, and disabled by default to

Re: ${Source-Version} without revision

Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Is there any variable similar to ${Source-Version} which would allow me to >> use version of the upstream sources in control file? [...] > Use dpkg-parsechangelog along with sed to get the upstream fr

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

Daniel Baumann writes: > Why then being so complicated? If there is a candidate in a country > doomed by US export laws, 'export' the notebook first to someone other > and ship if afterwards to Cuba. This would still violate the export law. Otherwise the law would be even more pointless than it a

Sparc build failure analysis (was Re: StrongARM tactics)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be a black hole. You'll need to find >> someone willing to communicate with acces

Re: Co-maintainers sought

Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > X31 and T43p, and some friends with X40 and A series :-P I can even top that one: r40, r50, x31, x40, x41, t42p, t43p and a30 :PP (and, just for the records, a 730c..) -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMA

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > It got proposed because no one was able to give correct explanations > about why it hadn't been included. Heh. I'm almost morbidly curious enough to ask what you think the "correct" explanation of why it hasn't been included is,

Re: Sparc build failure analysis (was Re: StrongARM tactics)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: > numactl > only supports i386 amd64 ia64 > appears to assume intel-style stuff, would need major redesign > for other architectures There's nothing intel-specific in here, rather it assumes NUMA support in the kernel

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

Heiko Müller wrote: > Dear Thiemo, > we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian package. > For us - and probably also for other users in the scientific > community - the "old" compiler version is still of great value. > > We use gcc-2.95 to compile C/C++ code with very large mathema

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > Since this point obviously needs to be made clearer, I guess it's time > to have some more rounds of removing packages that have long outstanding > RC bugs. I guess I'll coordinate with the RM team to do this sometime > over Christmas/New Year. (The following comment shou

Re: buildd administration

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are currently no public build logs for hurd-i386, but we are > working on getting them published on experimentel.ftbfs.de as well. If you can get them into , that would be wonderful. I read that page re

Re: buildd administration

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: [snip] > A similar issue I noted in the past is the big number of build failures > that don't get tagged 'Failed'. I tried working on classifying them, but > got bored so increadibly fast that I gave up, and decided for myself > this should be something the porters shou

Re: Intel notebooks for needy developers in developing countries

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Daniel Baumann wrote: Why then being so complicated? If there is a candidate in a country doomed by US export laws, 'export' the notebook first to someone other and ship if afterwards to Cuba. Well, this was my first idea as well. Even if I absolutely not like the kind of

Re: buildd administration

This is an omnibus reply. Sorry about the thread-breaking, but I'm on yet *another* computer, and I can't seem to find a mailer which respects the In-Reply-To headers from the web pages or lets me add my own. == I would like to note that I have made a practical and *new* suggestion for dealin

Is Lars Steinke MIA?

On 2005-11-14, I filed grave bug #339056: "Library package fails to include shlibs file" [0] on package tktable-dev [1] , on which my package saods9 build-depends. I'm concerned about this bug because 1) its RC; 2) I haven't heard back in a month, despite pinging the maintainer last week; 3) My pa

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > FTBFS issues are the most common though, as well as the easiest to > resolve; your point would carry more weight if you took the time to fix > yours first. (Looking through -private, I saw someone remark that 1000 > bugs was too many -- we have got 1400 _RC_ bugs at the mo

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that > fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed as a supported arch in > the source and ensuring it does not incorrect

Re: buildd administration

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> (BTW, I see #335981 and #336371 haven't received a response since late >>> October; or has raptor been down that entire time, so that you haven't been >>> able to diagnose it further -- it certainly seems down now?) >> >>Upstream is working on #335981 and

Re: apt PARALLELISM

> Seperate repositiories are already parallelized, which is what I think > you are asking for here. But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single repository, only one of them is currently used. Ideally, the amount of parallelism could match the number of redundant URLs pro

Re: apt PARALLELISM

On Dec 11, Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single > repository, only one of them is currently used. Which is fine, because we do not want people to open multiple connections to the same server. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't > > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that > > fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed

Packages up for adoption: gnokii, coldsync

Hi all, I've not had as much time to devote to Debian as I'd like, so in all fairness I'm offering my packages up for adoption so they can be looked after better than I've got time for. I'm not sure if this is the right process to follow, so please let me know if there's something else I should be

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:29:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I would like to note that I have made a practical and *new* suggestion > for dealing with some of these problems > (contrary to suggestions that I'm just flaming), because nobody's picked > up on my idea. Well, it's hard to sug