Adam Majer wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Adam Majer wrote:
As to the non-free binary blobs, these are to be moved to non-free.
There should be an automatic 'non-free removal patches' (not part of
the actual debian source).
To follow the X Strike Force model (which seems to work) I suggest
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:22:16AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >Adam Majer wrote:
> >>As to the non-free binary blobs, these are to be moved to non-free.
> >>There should be an automatic 'non-free removal patches' (not part of
> >>the actual debian source).
> >
> >To follow
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Adam Majer wrote:
As to the non-free binary blobs, these are to be moved to non-free. There
should be an automatic 'non-free removal patches' (not part of the actual
debian source).
To follow the X Strike Force model (which seems to work) I suggest a
'prune-non-fr
Adam Majer wrote:
>Anyway, bitkeeper or CVS would just be for kernel developers, and not for the
>end user.
Please don't use bitkeeper exclusively; you don't want to exclude people from
developing kernel packaging just because they work on (e.g.) subversion or
arch development.
>As to the non-f
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:23:58 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:44:43PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>>
>> I'm just looking at arch. It seems to be better than CVS - I never
>> liked the version tracking since it was per file. :)
>>
>> Thanks for th
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 13.27, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
> > I am interested to join/help out in the kernel maintenance.
> >
> > I am not sure if it matters because I am not a DD yet but I am
> > very keen and I do hope to hear from a
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:58:36PM +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
>
> I am interested to join/help out in the kernel maintenance.
>
> I am not sure if it matters because I am not a DD yet but I am
> very keen and I do hope to hear from anyone of you soon.
>
Please consider to join the projecy and pass
Hi there,
I am interested to join/help out in the kernel maintenance.
I am a long time Debian user for 5-6 years. In the university, I
worked on Linux VM-related kernel work, and during my free time,
I work on security-related kernel patches which my group will be
releasing soon.
I am not sure i
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 01:44:43PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
> I'm just looking at arch. It seems to be better than CVS - I never liked
> the version tracking since it was per file. :)
>
> Thanks for the suggestion - arch seems better than CVS.
>
Mmm, what's better among subversion and arch?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:16:03 -0500, Adam Majer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I would consider bitkeeper out of the question for a central
repository. CVS and SVN are certainly options, although I tend to
prefer arch. Regardless of what's chosen, I plan to still use arch
fo
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:27:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Christian T. Steigies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 16:10]:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 03:35:34PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > > All I wish is that we reduce the number of source packages for the
> > > kernel, to ease the load
* Christian T. Steigies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 16:10]:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 03:35:34PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > All I wish is that we reduce the number of source packages for the
> > kernel, to ease the load for the security team.
> I don't see how this reduces the load for the
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 03:35:34PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > > see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06531.html for an
>
> > > explanaition.
>
> > Oh... how come I've never seen this before? I thought I subscribed to
> > debian-k
* Christian T. Steigies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 12:10]:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 09:55]:
> > > On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:34:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > > > One other change I'd like t
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 09:55]:
> > On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:34:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > > One other change I'd like to see ASAP is to having a "first class
> > > architecture set" instead
* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040517 09:55]:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:34:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > One other change I'd like to see ASAP is to having a "first class
> > architecture set" instead of a individual kernel for i386 and alpha
> > (and possible more to add
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:34:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> One other change I'd like to see ASAP is to having a "first class
> architecture set" instead of a individual kernel for i386 and alpha
> (and possible more to add to this).
Could you please explain this better? What's s first cla
On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:16:03 -0500, Adam Majer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I would consider bitkeeper out of the question for a central
>> repository. CVS and SVN are certainly options, although I tend to
>> prefer arch. Regardless of what's chosen, I plan to still use arch
>> for my own work (
* Andres Salomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040514 18:55]:
> I've got a small list of interested parties (including Goswin) that I've
> emailed Herbert. As far as "lead", I don't know if that's how this should
> be structured; I'd see more of a release manager type role. Someone
> who plans roadmaps fo
Andres Salomon wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 06:40:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Herbert asked me to get signed mails from all willing to group
maintain the kernel on this list and then he would decide. I started
sending out some mails to people I know are intrested but haven't
sends one to
On Wed, 12 May 2004 06:40:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:15:56PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>>>
>>>
1. How and who will take over the lead of kernel maintenance?
>>>
>>>I
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:40:27AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> I would suggest using something that can handle multiple branches and
> makes version tracking between branches easy. It would be nice if we
> could add branches for seperate archs that can easily synchronise with
> the main
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
>>On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:15:56PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. How and who will take over the lead of kernel maintenance?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I do hope that Herbert stays the kernel maintainer.
Herbert asked me to get sig
Christian T. Steigies wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:15:56PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
1. How and who will take over the lead of kernel maintenance?
I do hope that Herbert stays the kernel maintainer.
2. Where will we have the kernel sources? Will these reside in a CVS? Or
bitkeeper?
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:15:56PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
> 1. How and who will take over the lead of kernel maintenance?
I do hope that Herbert stays the kernel maintainer.
> 2. Where will we have the kernel sources? Will these reside in a CVS? Or
> bitkeeper?
Bitkeeper? How many people
Hi all,
Looking at this list, there has not been many messages related to the
actual kernel package over the last few weeks. A few questions and some
comments,
1. How and who will take over the lead of kernel maintenance?
I'm assuming that maintenance will be closer to what we have with X than
26 matches
Mail list logo
