On Monday 09 April 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
you don't believe that software will continue to push forward our
> minimum hardware requirements, the way it has for the past decade or so?
> What do you think is the minimum memory required to run a "comfortable"
> desktop system (or workstation) to
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 02:38:40AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> In general, what are the reasons that tend to cause delays? Does it have
> something to do with the horde of devlopers pushing for new upstreams and
> features into the release at the last minute? (now I feel a bit guilty about
> thi
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 02:29:08AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Please do not answer on this list.
> Please excuse me for not obbeying this request, but it seems that it was done
> in the assumption that my reasoning is wrong.
No, it was done because *debian-release is not a discussion list*.
[M-F-T set appropriately]
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The thing is, that if lenny
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:38:44PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:43:55PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Do you really intend to release in that date? I'm not very informed about
> > the release process, but it seems to me there's a psychological factor here,
> > in whi
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does that mean you don't believe there will be such battle, or that you
> > don't believe the predicted date?
>
> I don't believe that there will be such a battle. There is no re
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:43:55PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Do you really intend to release in that date? I'm not very informed about
> the release process, but it seems to me there's a psychological factor here,
> in which the first announced release date is intentionaly unrealistic.
There
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2007 at 19:47:48 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > xorg 1:7.1.0-18 was unblocked for etch, but not built in time. Is it a
> > > candidate for r1?
> > The hppa-build is still not there, so we need to check whether i
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
>>> improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit ba
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
> > improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
> > will have finished by late 2008
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
> improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
> will have finished by late 2008.
I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008, and I
don't
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 02:54:12PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> * We want to restrict the release cycle for Lenny to less than 2 years,
> >>we want to discuss experiences
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 02:54:12PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * We want to restrict the release cycle for Lenny to less than 2 years,
>>we want to discuss experiences of Etch first though to get a more
>>accurate time planning.
> 2 years mea
On Sun, Apr 8, 2007 at 19:47:48 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > xorg 1:7.1.0-18 was unblocked for etch, but not built in time. Is it a
> > candidate for r1?
>
> The hppa-build is still not there, so we need to check whether it gets
> compatible, or whether there was any ABI etc change. Frankly
* Julien Cristau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070408 18:03]:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2007 at 14:54:12 +, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Preparing the first point-release
> > ~
> > There are already some packages known that will need an update in stable
> > soon. Best known is th
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 02:54:12PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> * We want to restrict the release cycle for Lenny to less than 2 years,
>we want to discuss experiences of Etch first though to get a more
>accurate time planning.
2 years means april 2009, which is past the 64-bit trans
On Sun, Apr 8, 2007 at 14:54:12 +, Andreas Barth wrote:
> At this point, we would like to thank all people who have helped to
> release Debian 4.0 (Etch). Only through the work of the community we
> were able to get to this point.
>
Thanks and congratulations to the release team for this ach
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
