On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 05:10:26AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> >>Because they have set up and maintain the buildd network.
> >Yes, nice, well done, thank them for their initial work, but it seems as if
> >it's up for others now to take over that job, because they obviously
> >failing continuousl
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> "You want to help? Start by buying your own mips machine!" isn't going to
> cut it. Besides, I already (and gladly) did that, for m68k.
You don't need to do that. There're plenty of machines available - albeit
outside the debian.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:01:46AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > You don't need to do that. There're plenty of machines available - albeit
> > outside the debian.org domain...
> Ingo, this is about the *security* autobuilders. There's a reason why
> Debian cannot do that with machines it does
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:21:28AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Funny. Arrakis were used heavily in the past for security builds as
> > well. Otherweise I have no idea where all those security team logins on
> > arrakis come from?
> I'd assume that there's a *slight* difference between "some
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:29:35AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But I think you're right... it's not about getting work done, it's about
> > politics and a orwellian "all users are equal, DDs are more equal" nonsense.
> > With every day passing by, it seems even more clearly to me that Debian
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:14:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > IIRC, you're one of those Ubuntus, right? No more to be said then...
> I am not an employee of Canonical, and nor have I ever been.
Ok, sorry then for that point.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:04:49PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes:
> > > One month ago, I asked the alpha and mips buildd maintainers to
> > > reschedule h5utils, which failed to build because of a missing build for
> > > dependency. Was this email ev
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:59:15PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:34:55PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Although the problem is well known and the solution is obvious, nobody seems
> > to have the guts to make a change (or even to speak about it).
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:10:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > I've sent messages to various [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses many
> > times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored.
> Me too, for values of ignored that include "may have resulted in some
> actio
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 08:51:52AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
> > Why? To make it public what buildd admins are the worst?
> To make public the requests made regarding the autobuilders (others
> can see existing requests, and do not have to send ide
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 21 décembre 2004 à 12:18 +0100, Ingo Juergensmann a écrit :
> > > FWIW: With your attitude and persistent accusations you're driving
> > > away even those who partially agree with you.
> &g
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:55:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If you want answers, mail me your questions privately. BTW: the questions I
> > asked within the thread are still unanswered as well. :)
> If you can't play politely, other people will not be inclined to play
> with you. Your con
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Please note that year 2005 has come to an end and
> > the year 2005 is now - even in my mail address!
> Does the new address bring with it a more constructive attitude towards
> volunteers who have contributed countless hours o
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:39:23AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Does the new address bring with it a more constructive attitude towards
> >> volunteers who have contributed countless hours over the years to keeping
> >> this project running, or should I plan to killfile this one as well?
> >
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:06:53AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Please note that year 2005 has come to an end and
> > > > the year 2005 is now - even in my mail address!
> > > Does the new address bring with it a more constructive attitude towards
> > > volunteers who have contributed c
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:42:00AM -, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:42 AM, Ingo Juergensmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regarding James Troup...
> [...]
> > I still believe that it would be better for the project when he would
>
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:59:31AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I don't understand why you try to make as many developers opposed to you
> as possible.
I don't try it, it's not my intention, but I say what I mean and think. Of
course this is sometimes not the same with what the audience might w
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:15:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Ohno, it's not my game, trust me. I've better things to do than playing such
> > a game. Maybe I'm the one who complains most loudly, but there are DDs that
> > agree with me in some (sometimes most or all) points,
> Yes, there a
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:11:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And now you joined the other side? Attacking instead of defending? Does that
> > help the m68k port better? I doubt that seriously.
> I'm not attacking anyone.
Usually this is what "attackers" believe. The attacked party feels
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:01:07AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:05:01 +0100, Ingo Juergensmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >When Joerg Jaspert is already doing the dirty daily work, why does James
> >still needs in place then? (Except he just stay
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:53:01PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> i've been using this new pwc driver for a while now and have not had
> any problems with it, tested on i386 and amd64 boxen.
The compiled source from saillard.org works fine here for my PowerPC system
as well... (tested with 2.6.8 t
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Our chances of actually releasing one day could only increase if we dropped
> arches such as mipsel, s390, m68k, ... and concentrated on those that
> actually
> mattered: i386, powerpc, amd64 -- and I'll gladly add a few more.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> But to the best of my knowledge, Marco's (blog) post from a few months
> ago which showed download from ftp.it.debian.org by architecture stands
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > What would help save many hours on slow systems is having a script
> > automatically set "Dep-Wait: libbfoo (>> 1.2-3)" for all new sources
> > according to Bu
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:24:28AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
> [ a lot of stuff but omitting one critical argument of mine ]
> Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I demonstrated
> the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:42PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Bastian Blank worked on a database that handles all these build-deps on the
> > central wanna-build replacement. The idea is to give out just those packages
> Even that sounds too complicated. Really, each buildd can work this out
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:22:37PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "Can" and "should" are different stories.
> > When there's a missing build-dep on one arch, it might make sense to stop
> > that package from being distributed for other archs, so they don't waste
> > their time on that.
> > You
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:13:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
As far as I can tell you: the m68k buildd people will have noticed that
problem much earlier than you.
Furthermore, I don't know if that's a problem of the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I'm not complaining about the slow archs, and the m68k buildd failure
> will surely be noticed. It has not, however, been retried. Why?
Because the buildds are currently doing other stuff?
> I'm asking for *information*. H
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:36:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm not trying to grind an axe or complain, I'm seeking information
> > and to move the process along expeditiously because it's blocking a
> > lot more than just an xfree86 upgrade.
> For example, once this is fixed, how do
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:57:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > See why the current buildd system is obsolete?
> I've never disagreed with the fact that the current buildd system is
> creaking.
> What would it take for multibuild to succeed? or something else?
People who care and have
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:06PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > or mail the appropriate buildd admin listed on http://buildd.net/ -
> > maybe the addresses are not uptodate anymore, but that's because not
> > all buildd admins cooperate...
> Why not list this address at the end of each ar
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:44:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For example, if even *one* buildd maintainer doesn't requeue with some
> kind of promptness, then the only way to deal with it will be to make
> a new upload, which will force a recompile everywhere.
This is only valid on arch
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 05:27:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> and if we relax this to only require "within 10 days of any source upload,
> assuming the source isn't buggy, there must be a binary upload for this
> security bug", we would be kicking out
> alpha arm mips mipsel powerpc sparc
I
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:22:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 08-03-2005 te 10:33 -0800, schreef Clint Byrum:
> > How much would it help with the current problems if we just picked 3
> > arches(mipsel, s390, ???)
> This argument has been brought up so many times by now that I'm amazed
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
When one machine out of a dozen machines is
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> > > catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a doz
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:25:33PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a dozen machines is unavailable, it has less impact
> > than one machine failure out of two machines, although the chances will
> > raise that a machin
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
> Frankly there are not likely to be any users for hamradio on s390, mips*
> arm, or
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
In fact it was one of the 2 main reasons for my choice. apt-get was the other
ma
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:50:15PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> How about geda-gschem? Waiting on arm for a couple of weeks now.
> Holding up migration of all of geda* on all architectures.
> I couldn't work out where wanna-build CVS is hosted so I couldn't
> actually check the order to see wher
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:50:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > IMHO scc.d.o will result in focussing on those archs, making it worse and
> > worse for the other archs. Implementing scc.d.o is equally to dropping those
> > older archs in my eyes. It's just another wording.
> Notice, that there i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, March 14, 2005 10:10, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > It would be better when the project would be honest and state that it want
> > to become a x86-compatible only distribution (with the small tribute to
&g
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> That let me raise a problem I see with such an infrastructure. Imagine
> an FTBFS on an SCC architecture (let's say arch X needs an autotools
> update). If it is not possible to have a high severity for this bug
> (because it is
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:25:13PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Sorry for using "stupid", "braindead" and others. But there are no other
> >words for crap like this, imho.
> Hmm, while I'm in principle share your point of keeping the architectures
> it does not sound very sane to be that harsh.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:20PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> [...]
> > but in fact this is already a decission being
> > made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
> > by that deci
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
> > will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
> Ingo, obviou
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 support for the architectures they
> care for, for various rea
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> > - Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
> If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch
> we s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There were offers of help in man power and machines for archs that had
> > problems in keeping up. Those were rejected. Punishing those archs for the
> > mistakes of those buildd admins rejecting helping hands is just plain
> > stupi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:53:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And arm as a badly buildd-maintained one ? :)
Yes, when it's rejecting machine offers or other help.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
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 said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elm
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 upload packages.
> > Why are some architectures refused
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 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
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 11:34:58PM +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
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:38:44PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | So, you call me not trustworthy, although it was *me* to first help out m68k
> | when kullervo was unable to keep up with package building?
> You are not a DD, so Debian does not have a trust relationship with
> you. It has not
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:22:44PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Has the kernel team made any advances to the m68k kernel team for a closer
> > cooperation? Or did they just yelled "Hey! We are now taking over the kernel
> > development, no matter if more capable people are outside of the pro
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:44:10PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> *yawn* Ingo, please go away. I'm asking you nicely. Don't come back
> until you have something constructive to say - at the moment you're
> not helping anyone.
My dearest, beloved Steve,
although I understand that not everyone lik
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And I could still do - but I'm not allowed anymore. Great Job, Mr.
> > Troup!
> Oh, come on, this isn't fair.
> You're not allowed to anymore because you stubbornly refused to pledge
> you would not compromise Debian's security u
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When he declined (after seriously considering the option), and, because
> he didn't receive a pledge from you (and thus couldn't in any reasonable
> way trust you) locked you out of Debian hardware, you rambled on and
> screamed th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG 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.
> > This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG 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.
> > > > This not only happens to s390 now but already happen
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:31:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If his job is keeping him from working on Debian, he should step down
> > from his post.
> My job is keeping me from working on Debian as much as I'd like.
> Should I resign as a DD?
> Do you think that only people who are either
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Again, without a proper communication there's no chance of cooperation.
> > Otherwise those kinds of "I've heard that you've done..."-stories would have
> > happen again and again...
> Ingo, stop being such a cock. Even if you'd
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:31PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > What will happen is something like this:
> > A: "Oh, let's see what we got here a nice Alpha server..."
> > B: "Let us install Debian on it!"
> > *browsing the web*
> > A: "Oh, no release of Debian for Alpha... it's unsupported.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
> and add:
> - at least two buildd administrators
*nod*
> - systems located in at least two different facilities (different
> cities and backbones if at all po
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> Those are quite different things. As I am not the DAM, I don't
> decide whether or not to trust you on behalf of Debian.
I
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:50:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Done.
Well said.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> example, could be a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:14:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The step for you to become trusted is easy: apply for NM. A few years
> ago, I would've happily become your advocate. This /must/ mean you're
> trustworthy, even though you're not trusted yet. After all, trustworthy
> means 'deserv
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> > aka gpg key.
> I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
even with that snippet you don't know me. You just know, that there
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:37:13PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window
> >sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position
> >important infrastructure.
> I agree. A sturdy table, or even a shelf or se
Hi!
After buildd.net is fully working again, I thought it might be worthwhile to
let you know and write a small mail about its new features:
* buildd.net now supports unstable, non-free, sarge-volatile, experimental
and etch-secure targets
* after the inclusion of armeb, hurd-i386, kfreebsd
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:08:55PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > Where is the buildd.net software located? I poked around on the site but
> > I couldn't find it except for the update-buildd.net script.
> (Replying to myself after getting an answer on IRC from Ingo...)
> The short summary to my ans
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
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
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:30:24AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> has anyone every considered a check in the buildd infrastructure to
> alert someone (buildd admin and/or others) if a build is taking too long
> (eg openoffice usually takes between 2-3 hours to build and the current
> build has been bu
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:46:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Even if the current software isn't publically available for whatever
> reason (personally, I'm putting my money on "hacked into place over time
> and not particularly easy to massage into a form someone else could run,"
That's one pa
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > (The contact addresses and machine up/down statuses are a valuable part of
> > buildd.net which *isn't* there, but that's another matter entirely, which
> > requires different and additional work.)
> The graphs are also no
free, regardless of what
> theoretical license is attached to the theoretical source that no one has
> access to.
http://www.buildd.net/index.html - at the end of the page it states:
"This service is donated to the Developers of the Debian Project by Ingo
Juergensmann."
It's a service,
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:41:28PM +0100, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2005 19:25, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Jens Peter Secher [Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:50:26 +0100]:
> > > I need to test that a package can be built with g++ >= 4:4.0.2-2 on
> > > HPPA, Arm, or M68k. Is there a DD
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> when we were in Helsinki, but it was before that), and that his setup,
> IIRC, was in
Hi!
Since my last update on Buildd.Net [0] features here [1] many new features
were added to Buildd.Net. I'll try to some them up:
* a new design - the layout and structure of Buildd.Net changed.
* devel systems - to support developers in their porting work, Buildd.Net
donates accounts on s
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:26:13AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
> Based on comments made to me by a number of women who are interested in
> contributing more to Debian, the level of agressiveness on some of the
> mailing lists and IRC channels is a problem. It is preventing people
> (women an
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I wish more women would join Debian and the lists. My experience is that
> > usually there's not that much aggressiveness when there are women around.
> That usualy only works if you recognise them as females and can lead
>
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Now, if we face dropping one or more of our architectures (i.e. m68k)
> > because new hardware can not be found anymore (the Vancouver proposal
> > mentions that "the release architecture must be publicly available to
> > buy new"
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > You would rather have silence than know why you are being ignored?
> > Then silence you shall have.
> Well, its the tone that makes the music we use to say here in Germany.
> Certainly there would have been ways to tell Bluefutur
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters
> > ready to do huge amounts of porting work. For example, would you dare to
> > say m68k is l
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work
> on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds.
There was one in the make, but it got stuck for some unknown reasons (mostly
because involved people
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:30:14AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> In general debian builds everything for every architecture. This is a
> very good plan and finds a lot of bugs.
Agreed.
> However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
> arches. Numerical analysis software in gene
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:21:35PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> I agree with most of what Wookey and you said, but would like some
> clarification on this:
> On Sat, 14.10.2006 at 12:06:20 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But sadly, I have very
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2006-10-14 12:06 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > It doesn't make much sense to build all Desktop related packages for an arch
> > that is mainly used remotely or as an embedded device. I don't think that
&
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:51, Wookey wrote:
> > Nevertheless I think it is clear that we do need mechanisms to keep
> > the load and package set appropriate for slower arches. If we design
> > the mechanism properly I would hope
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
