On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 02:03:13PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 21:17, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:03:59PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> > > Hmmm. 'apt-get upgrade' this morning seems to have fixed it
> > > all -- s
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:12:03AM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >>It's hard to take this sort of d
architectures except the main 4" or
something such soon.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
c, and /debian-devel or
something such. Is it really a physical problem fro ftp-master to held all
these roles ? What is it exactly that ftp-masters want to drop all these
arches for ?
Mirrors could then chose to go with 1) only (most of them will), or also
mirror 2) and/or 3).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
delay will drop if we drop arches. I also remember that ia64 was one
of the most problematic to autobuild the ocaml packages in august or so, and
it was worse off than m68k, mips or arm if i remember well.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ebian.org automagically points to the right
place and such, and should be transparent.
But again, i feel that the announcement was one thing, but that it lacks much
information about the reason which pushed the decision, and the individual
technical problems to be overcome. Are the minutes of
existing testing scripts
> into something that will make reasonable package selections for you.
So, why don't you do snapshoting for testing ? Do you not think handling all
those thousands of packages manually without the automated testing thinhy
would be not an over-burden for those guys ?
ers and other third parties more difficult to focus.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
le the fact that most of those told us recently on
debian-vote that they believed that dropping an architecture will not help
with the delay of the release ? And giving the times of the posts, they
probably knew about this plan previously to replying that, especially those of
the scud team. Pure demagogy then ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n, popularity-contest installation per default was dropped for
debian-installer rc3, so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ow working for ubuntu.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW, how much of the human intervention needed for buildd signing
> > plays in the delays you see, and did you discuss the possibiliity of
> > a
truction set to start with).
One could add per-subarch optimized builds and mirrors too though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > - the p
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:27AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:55AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> > > you may find source, i386 and powerpc and sparc binaries
> > > of mplayer 1
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on
> > debian-vote that they believed that dropping an architecture will not he
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:57AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:35]:
> > Well, but wouldn't reenabling the popularity-contest by default for sarge
> > help
> > a lot on that ?
>
> There was a technical reason why i
ary step to put the load on those people who want to use the arch
> instead of those who maintain central infrastructure.
Like the arm autobuilders for example ? Mmm, but then the arm buildd
maintainer is also our main ftp-master, right ?
Friendly,
Sven luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
decision.
>
> I always thought those who do the work, also get to make the decisions.
Not really, unless you want to fork the whole debian infrastructure that is.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 11:00, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > > tha
it to my page[2]
>
> I believe Sven was referring to the Linux Weekly News interview with the
> DPL candidates. It can be found here:
Yep, probably. I believe it should have been posted to debian-vote too though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:23:50AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, it asked one question during the install, wasn't it ? One potentially
> > confusing question to the poor user.
>
> That's almost as innacurate as your earlier statement that
&
ious to me. In particular, I see
> no consensus among ftpmaster/archive people, release people, toolchain
> people, porters, and basically everyone else that this is the way to
Well, there is no clear consensus about what debian is and should be in the
future among these people to st
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Sven Luther, 2005-03-14 10:50:13 +0100 :
>
> > I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth
> > instead on the official debian ftp server would cause a problem.
>
> The amd64 archive on
ng hands is just plain
> stupid. The user is the one who will suffer from that "decision".
Notice that one of the main arch having problem some time back was arm, and
the buildd where maintained by who ? elmo.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
those architectures won't influence testing and they
> won't be officially released.
So, there are no stable release to be running and be sure you have no
problems, and no testing to be sure some random developer who doesn't think
past x86 break your upgrade on a random basis.
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.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the res
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:54PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They don't scale well, and have passed the past couple of year insisting
> > that
> > there is no problem apart from the waste majority of DDs likeing to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:49:24PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Where human delay did come into play was in getting the xfree86 mess
> &
act I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
> released.
seconded, and ubuntu has proven that it is possible.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lease architectures from scc.d.o, which is a
> good thing ...
That means that only x86 and amd64 are going to be tier one arches ? That is
worse that what was even in the announcement, and i hope i misunderstood this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:44:27PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 14:29, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Obviously the aim is to have the tier 2
> > arches dropped from the main ftp-servers of debian (do we still run some of
> > those on sun-donated sparc ma
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:24:06PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> >
> >>Sven Luther a écrit :
> >>
> >>>- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> >>
r security ? Was this not why woody was delayed 3 month ?
> The problems extend beyond the mirrors and the buildds.
But which problems ? there has not been a concise description of said
problems, nor of which of those will be solved with the drastic steps
preconised.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
r s390 or ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:17:45PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > What about building the scc (or tier 2 as i would say) arches from testing
> > and
> > not unstable ?
>
> That would negate one of the main points of having Testing, i.
simply cutting of the porter's effort like a dead limb, a more
constructive approach should have been taken.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:56:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > * Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> >
itectures" should instead split off in their own
little corner instead :), since i believe that one thing that defines debian
is his multiple arch support wait a minute, we already have ubuntu who
split of into his main-arch-support only corner :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, if there is too much work for a small group, then open it out. But it is
not by insulting the people you need the help from that things will get
forward.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You seem top have an axe to grind here with somebody, friend, so why not
> just name names and be done with it? Sniping from the back row never
> helps anything.
Go look at the mailing list archives, there where enough threads about this in
the past few years.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
es
> demand a lot, but the burden has to go somewhere, and the people currently
> carrying large portions of it are saying they can't do this any more.
Notice too that the exact same people whose help is needed are those that are
pissed by this proposal, and whose help has been repeteadly
in a timely manner.
Not, since sarge will now be delayed a couple of month as we all degenerate in
intestine flamewar, and future debian will have lost his sould in this, so it
will not really be debian, the universal OS, as we know it anymore.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
ty response
> time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 arches but
> not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable.
What is the detailed reasoning for this requirement anyway ? And would a
ten-way redundant distcc cluster count as one machine ?
e porters could do their own release if they wished.
Maybe the porters could then also upload the packages they maintain only for
their pet arch then ? Do you have an idea how many of our 900+ maintainers are
from not-mainstream arches ? i bet it may well be around 10% in both
maintainers and amount of packages concerned.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ined packages on behalf of porters? The amd64 crew seems to
> be getting along ok w/out having their FTBFS bugs considered RC..
Because there is a big commercial interest in getting amd64 support, not
counting ubuntu being based on debian and doing amd64 work. Not to mention
that they employ many who vetoed amd64-in-sarge in that sad story all those
days ago.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
life?
> Is "second class port" be a better name? (scp.d.o)? Or "non-releaseable
> ports", nrp.d.o?
I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
in-development ports.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ke the ubuntu kernel does,
so this will be a moot point in the future, and the new kernel-team is rather
fit and responsive, and welcoming of help.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
supported, and not really considered as a technical solution.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:53:38AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:17:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Like said, since ubuntu has mplayer, there is really no reason to stale it
> > for
> > debian now.
>
> I cannot speak for anyone
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:20:23PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop
> > mirror
> > support for all minor arches, what does it cost to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:43:21PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Where human delay did come into play was in getting the xfree86 mess
> >> cleaned; in theory it should have taken one or two days, but in
> &
or network, yes,
you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing altogether,
isn't it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d
> eventually we will have timely Debian stable releases people can trust their
> jobs on and Debian stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for
Which end done doing less because they have to duplicate all the architecture
already in place for tier1, no ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:54:32AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > >
> > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
> &g
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:07:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 19:15 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
> > so the buildd admin really examine all the packages for deviation that a
> > compromised buildd could have incorporated before signing them ? Or that
> &
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >> In fact I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
> >> released.
> >seconded, and ubuntu has proven that it is possible.
>
> "Ubuntu this, ubun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:08:15PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >> * Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> >> >
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 20
buters and had a hard time
> releasing before Ubuntu existed.
Oh, do you know when ubuntu started hiring debian devels ? I think it is at
least one year ago, but they may have started earlier than that.
Not saying that means anything, but i do believe that ubuntu already existed
at the time wh
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >>incremental building supported? And finally, why isn't it considered a
> >>technical solution?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because it is not needed for the f
es the "make clean" between builds. Therefore (c) you can't assume
> that your fixed source will result in fixed binaries. This is a security
> fix, so it's especially important that the binaries get fixed.
BTW, what about ccache ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSU
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:01AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:06:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Yeah, ok, but mplayer was rejected, and is now in many-year-NEW-limbo, for
> > licencing reasons, which i believe are the same for ubuntu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Well, it just calls for smarther mirroring tricks.
>
> Do not expect mirror admins to run Debian, and to be willing to pull
> sm
topics and maybe just say something about it
> also:)
>
> Anyway, I take this opportunity to thank the involved people for their
> time and work as well as their commitment to the project.
Yep, but even on the d-i team, it seems the work of all those non-first-tier
arches was
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:09:10AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > There was no comment from the security team about this new plan, we don't
> >
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:11:35PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:50:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:01AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > I don't know who rejected mplayer, so I can't answer
the security team for it ? The whole problem is that there is nothing
constructive offered the dropped arches porters, just that they are left to
work out their stuff alone.
I wonder also, do we still not have some sun donated sparc box running part of
our infrastructure ? How will that stay if we drop sparc support ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by one to two *years*.
> The rest follows from that.
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 with
real facts, and n
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement
>
> Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:30:03PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Ok, so why doesn't mplayer get's accepted in debian now ?
>
> I have no idea, nor is it my responsibility to know. I can only say t
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:14AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated,
> > don't you ?
>
> Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us
d BTW, despite my repeated call for help, i have not yet found anybody with
x86 experience to help me comaintain the parted package, as thus i propose we
should drop x86 from tier-1 arches instead of letting it eat up our users data
without warning :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are a lot of security fixes in Debian
> kernels that were brought to my attention by either Fabio or Martin.
Because they are in the security-announce-loop and we are not though, right ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of
> > the
> > problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther
> >> &
ly. The uploads still all go through
> ftp-master.debian.org, which is where the release action happens.
Ok, that clarifies the above, and is more in touch with what was previously
planned. But why didn't you clearly state that in the announcement ?
And will mirrors be able to dec
learly
that this is a wanted thing.
> I hope that this mail is able to shed some light onto these issues. Please
> accept my apologies for the missing information in the first mail.
Thanks for the clarifications,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:23:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Yes, I would like to reiterate that coordination between Martin Pitt, th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:21:21AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
> >
> > The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is
> > not
> > in the loop fo
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > > that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they'r
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:54AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Could you be more clear about this ? which issues are those ?
>
> Sven, Steve is referring to the first part of his mail, where he says that
> building from
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It i
right now. Might
> become a problem for etch, I agree.
There is 2.6 work on m68k, just not all subarches are ready for it though.
> m68k folks, is there anything in the works for 2.6 ?
Yep, runs since a couple of month last time i was informed for that, at least
on the amiga arch.
Fri
gt; public m68k machine.
Notice that m68k doesn't actively participate in the kernel-team, and package
their stuff in their own corner though, which may be the reason for this
perceived problem.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:47:37AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
> > ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:41:01PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> 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
URL in the announcement
> above became a redirect to the more comprehensive site.
I heard about it through slashdot the first time though :).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:51:30AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
DVDs (i386-only planned)
May i ask for powerpc DVD images too ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cally processed.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
elease, and
probably make the source changeset over tier-1 stable bigger than necessary
due to the fact that arch-specific fixes will only be fixed once tier-1 stable
has been released.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
ctures.
>
> Nevertheless, it is a factor that contributes negatively to the
> maintainability of a stable release...
Well, we could drop mac/m68k supported subarch then ?
For that matter, it would probably make sense to drop 2.4 kernels fully in the
not so far future.
Friendly,
Sven L
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > After reading the mention of it in debian-weekly-news, i read with interest
> > :
> >
> >
> > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/random_idea_re_new_queue-2005-03-02-21-12.h
d to full release manager assistants or whatever later on, as they
already have the right credential for it.
Your proposal also ignores security team's requirement which may be orthogonal
to the release team requirements, as their timeline is fully different
(post-release vs pre-release).
so we can't really do kernel or installer tests), we don't
have those ppc64 machine IBM mentioned could be made available, which makes
work on the kernel and installer part at least less possible.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rchitecture.
> Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and
> "powerpc64". Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent.
Notice that powerpc used to be called ppc back then (98ish or something such),
and that the name got changed to powerpc64.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rent as pure dogma, despite the cost
involved ?
> Obviously I have no power to overrule you on your choice of architecture
> name, but I'd like to try and appeal to some common sense in you, if
> there is any.
Hehe.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:35:27AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:29:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ideally we would see forming a little NEW-reviewing comittee which would
> > facilitate the job of the ftp-masters. This is also in accordance of the
1 - 100 of 515 matches
Mail list logo
