On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Unfortunately, the queue ordering policy is unclear. I was guessing
> that the priority of the upload would have something to do with
> queueing policy.
>
> Since the all but one of the other arch buildd's have empty
> needs-b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> > - target
[Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package
Please see bug 267494. Lush (a QA package) should get into testing.
It needs to get into testing. What is necessary, beyond a 201 day old
bug report, to have it in testing?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package name
>
> I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urge
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> > architectures. Re-upload
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 01:23:56PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I just don't think it's ready for stable, and I don't have the time to beat
> it into shape. #299144 has been submitted to keep it from creeping back in.
Tagged for removal.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
--
T
I just don't think it's ready for stable, and I don't have the time to beat
it into shape. #299144 has been submitted to keep it from creeping back in.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> > policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> > of guesswork.
>
> You were
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> of guesswork.
You were *told*[1] to wait. Do not fall back to guesswork when someone
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> architectures. Re-uploading doesn't change its position in the queue, but
> it *does* force buildds f
Changelog entry from a package that has just arrived in incoming:
gnucash (1.8.10-8) unstable; urgency=high
.
* high urgency upload because the fix for critical bug 291632 didn't get
into testing because of recompilation bugs, those later fixes were
uploaded with urgency low, and th
Christian Perrier wrote:
> The urgency of this upload should probably be bumped to high so that the
> testing of d-i RC3 is not delayed.
It seems to have been uploaded with a proper urgency of high. If that
didn't take (there has been some absolute evil on newraff that has made
some upload urgenci
> > I noticed a serious bug at this time...
> >
> > Some language uses jfbterm for 2nd stage console, but jfbterm 0.4.7-1
> > won't stop even when internal process exits at least on vmware.
> > base-config runs "jfbterm -e /bin/true" for test. Because jfbterm won't
> > exit, installer hangs up for
procmail (3.22-11) unstable; urgency=low
* Added Large File Support, using the output of "getconf LFS_CFLAGS".
This will add -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 when the architecture needs it,
and only when the architecture needs it (Closes: #236685).
* Headers User-Agent: and NNTP-Posting-Date: ar
15 matches
Mail list logo
