Hi,
please consider pushing exim4 4.50-4 from unstable into testing. The
package has been in sid for 10 days without any new bad bugs
surfacing. exim4 4.50 has been in sid for some time longer since we
hat two RC bugs in the first versions of the package.
It fixes a number of small bugs, introduc
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> reduce the rate of package inflow through various means, but the problem
> still remains -- the queue
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > > completly static order. Any c
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
> kind of FIFO order.
This is not true. The current system has an unbounded wait time. For
example, the effect of the Bug Squashing Party, which causes a bunch
of uploads to b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> > hiding because they are not "nee
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> hiding because they are not "needs-build". I consider that the biggest
> flaw of all in wanna-build.
This is
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:52:22PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> why not all in one? One Packages file could hold binaries of different
> architectures.
New files at
http://higgs.djpig.de/upgrade/upgrade-kernel/
Comments on the README file welcome?
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECT
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Saturday 12 March 2005 15:00, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not something to delay the release over, so it's not relevant on
> > -release atm, especially since -release can't do anything about it.
> > -release is *not* a discussion list.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not something to delay the release over, so it's not relevant on
> -release atm, especially since -release can't do anything about it.
> -release is *not* a discussion list. Do you really think it's useful to
> complain about ftp-master team
[m-f-t -devel, since this is already offtopic on -release]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 05:27:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [The unofficial list at http://people.debian.org/~aba/sarge.html
> doesn't show any release updates since September, so I'm unable to
> evaluate which things are on "
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be patient, and fix some RC bugs. It's a BSP this weekend. Lush hasn't
> ever been in stable, and isn't in testing at the moment, so it's a new
> package.
Actually, in point of fact, the reason the relevant bug was filed
against ftp.debian.org
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:04:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So we are waiting on the ftp team. It's been over a hundred days, and
> nothing has happened. It seems extremely likely to me that the bug
> report has been forgotten. Yet, I've been told that pestering people
> is not the ri
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:03:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all. Package name
> > is a bit odd, too, but including the section in there is just totally
> > whack.
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to http://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific, the
> package is not supposed to be tried on ia64:
>
> %lush: !ia64
> #ANAIS, #267494
>
> This package is merely w
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:10:55AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Saturday 12 March 2005 05:02, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:14:54PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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
On Saturday 12 March 2005 05:02, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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?
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=lush
| lu
18 matches
Mail list logo
