On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 09:53:49PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>...
> 3) In the current state, I think it boils down to the question if armel
> and mipsel should be dropped for bullseye or not. What do we think
> ourselves? Myself, I've been regularly cursing mipsel for it being so
> much slower to b
On 2020-05-15 08:23, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Matthias Klose 于2020年5月14日周四 下午11:45写道：
> >
> > On 5/7/20 9:41 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > >> I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the
> > >> architectures that will be par
Matthias Klose 于2020年5月14日周四 下午11:45写道：
>
> On 5/7/20 9:41 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the
> >> architectures that will be part of bullseye. In the before last IRC
> >> meeting I pro
On 5/7/20 9:41 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the
>> architectures that will be part of bullseye. In the before last IRC
>> meeting I promised I would send this mail, so here we go. Let's see w
Hi
On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the
> architectures that will be part of bullseye. In the before last IRC
> meeting I promised I would send this mail, so here we go. Let's see what
> items we consider a must. Anybody else th
On 2016-10-30 12:23 +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Architecture qualification for Debian 9 'Stretch' will take place in
> oftc/#debian-release on Sun Oct 30 20:00:00 UTC 2016.
>
> (With apologies for the short notice.)
Too short for me, sorry. Missed it. Hopefully that didn't matter.
Wookey
On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:08 +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> In case you're going to axe powerpc - which I assume you will - please let
> it at least exist in Debian Ports.
The Release Team don't manage the Ports archive. It's not in our gift to
decide which architectures it contains.
Re
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 12:23:32PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>Architecture qualification for Debian 9 'Stretch' will take place in
>oftc/#debian-release on Sun Oct 30 20:00:00 UTC 2016.
>
>The meeting is primarily a discussion amongst the release team. We will
>evaluate each port on the most
On 10/30/2016 09:23 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Architecture qualification for Debian 9 'Stretch' will take place in
> oftc/#debian-release on Sun Oct 30 20:00:00 UTC 2016.
Ugh, that would be 4 AM here in Hong Kong where I currently am. Had hoped
this discussion could have been held in Novembe
Adrian Bunk:
> [ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ]
>
> [...]
>
> Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date
> information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision
> would look like based on the current information?
[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ]
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch.
> This is primarily of interest to the release team, but I will also take
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:37:14 +0200
Holger Levsen wrote:
> > No, this time the work is based on the DDE framework, recently
> > successfully implemented for network drivers. Ask Samuel Thibault
> > for more details if interested, he is the person in charge. BTW:
> > USB support might also be possib
On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> Do you mean gnome3 and KDE4/5 here, or maybe DRM?
DRM
> No, this time the work is based on the DDE framework, recently
> successfully implemented for network drivers. Ask Samuel Thibault for
> more details if interested, he is the person in charge
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 13:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> > One issue is how to encourage more people trying Hurd out, when it is
> > not in testing.
>
> I honestly don't think that's the main blocker trying out hurd. Lack of SATA,
> and U
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:18 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > From the one of the porters side, this would be a _very_ good solution
> > indeed! If GNU/Hurd enters som kind of testing status, the number of
> > users and contributors w
Hi,
On Montag, 4. Juni 2012, Svante Signell wrote:
> One issue is how to encourage more people trying Hurd out, when it is
> not in testing.
I honestly don't think that's the main blocker trying out hurd. Lack of SATA,
and USB support are the blocker, I think. And probably also missing meaningfu
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 10:56 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I assume this is not a regular mail correspondence, is it?
> >
>
> I generally consider it polite to give people an opportunity to respond
> before assuming that you're being ignored, especially if it's part of a
> longer thread.
Mayb
On 6/1/12, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:18:30PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> > On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> > > [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with
>> > > break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make t
Hi,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:18:30PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with
> > > break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs
> > > for hurd-i386
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:18 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with
> > > break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs
> > > for hurd-i386 are not RC.
On 28/05/12 01:52, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 29/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with
> > break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs
> > for hurd-i386 are not RC.
>
> Maybe that's all that's needed?
>
> The recent enthusiasm sou
Cyril Brulebois (28/05/2012):
> Thanks for the clarification. I suggest we wait a few days until
> somebody gets a grip on the current situation (newly-added graphs may
> help figure out what would suffer from that), and we take action soon.
> I should be able to look into that in the next few day
On 30/05/12 13:10, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail
> failed builds for hurd-i386 to maintainers for example.
Actually, when looking into kfreebsd-* issues, I find it very helpful to
see hurd-i386 on buildd.d.o, along with log excerpts
Philipp Kern, le Wed 30 May 2012 14:10:02 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes
> > maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package
> > themselves.
>
> I wonder
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> What is a problem is not appearing on buildd.debian.org. That makes
> maintainers way less receptive to patches or even fix their package
> themselves.
I wonder how that makes a difference, even psychologically. We don't mail
faile
Joerg Jaspert, le Tue 29 May 2012 09:02:32 +0200, a écrit :
> There is only one thing I would agree on: If the RT decides to not
> include them in wheezy but add them to wheezy+1 right after wheezy is
> released (so we would be doing it during the process) and keep them
> there for the next release
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:02:32 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - hurd can come back into the main archive following the usual archive
> qualification every other new addition has to follow. Clean, simple,
> straight forward.
Not completely sure about the "simple, straight forward" part, if it
On 12861 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually
>>explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this
>>stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of
>>previous discussions is that the gener
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:04:18PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> > hurd-i386
>>
>> No, not at all. It wouldn't be released at all at that point. (I.e. not
>> copied
>> into stable.) I'm very uncomfortable having such a thing alongside our
>>
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>
>armhf
>-
>
>Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
>from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
Yes please! :-) At this point, I'm happy that we can support armhf at
least as well as mos
On 28/05/12 19:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
> [...] we add hurd-i386 to testing with
> break/fucked, but we don't expect it to make the release. I.e. bugs
> for hurd-i386 are not RC.
Maybe that's all that's needed?
The recent enthusiasm sounds to me like an opportunity. An official
testing suite in
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> sparc
> -
>
> Need to clarify whether the 32-bit code generation issue noted for
> Squeeze is still relevant.
Which issue is that? The fact that gcc is going to drop support for
configurations which generate 32-bit code on
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:08:15PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 20:44:20 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>> Also, for ia64 we *could* consider (as long as there is no serious
>> hickup - #638068 is serious) that we release with ia64 but given to
>> the lack of real porters le
On 05/28/2012 08:57 PM, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 14:22]:
>> hurd-i386
>> -
>>
>> Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
>> {break,fucked}_arches? Would it make sense to release if it was still
>> in break_ and/or fucked_a
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 22:05]:
> On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > hurd-i386
> > > -
> > >
> > > Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
> > > {break,f
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > hurd-i386
> > -
> >
> > Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
> > {break,fucked}_arches?
>
> I think it's not. If anything that would be for the beg
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 20:44:20 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Also, for ia64 we *could* consider (as long as there is no serious
> hickup - #638068 is serious) that we release with ia64 but given to
> the lack of real porters left we already decide now to drop ia64
> directly after the release of
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 14:22]:
> hurd-i386
> -
>
> Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
> {break,fucked}_arches? Would it make sense to release if it was still
> in break_ and/or fucked_arches?
Depending on the number of issues that pop up
* Philipp Kern (pk...@debian.org) [120528 20:24]:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > ia64
> >
> >
> > No real follow-up from porters. #638068 in initramfs-tools may be
> > an issue.
>
> Still feels very much on the fringe. We could look how good it works
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> armhf
> -
>
> Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
> from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
Yes.
> hurd-i386
> -
>
> Is there time to add it to testing and get it out
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:57 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 14:22]:
> > mips
> >
> >
> > Currently no porter box; being worked on. Some concern over stability
> > of some buildds.
>
> eh. The porter box is online again after that was broug
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 14:22]:
> mips
>
>
> Currently no porter box; being worked on. Some concern over stability
> of some buildds.
eh. The porter box is online again after that was brought to our
attention. Still the box has an hardware issue (hard disk migh
Adam D. Barratt (28/05/2012):
> The practical implication of dropping the architectures from
> fucked_arches would be that out-of-date binaries would become
> blockers for migration.
>
> We already dropped the architectures from break_arches, which means
> that new installability problems are alr
On 28.05.2012 13:43, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam D. Barratt (28/05/2012):
armhf
-
Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
s390x
-
Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove i
Thanks for the summary.
Adam D. Barratt (28/05/2012):
> armhf
> -
>
> Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
> from there and promote it to a full release architecture?
> s390x
> -
>
> Seems okay. Still in fucked_arches currently - should we remove it
> fr
On 15.05.2012 16:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
We had replies for most architectures. To try and re-centralise this a
little more, and as my tuits seem to be dis
* Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) [120516 11:31]:
> Andreas Barth (16/05/2012):
> > Anyways, if the most concering issue is that there is currently only
> > one swarm-type mips buildd, we could just use the spare machine we
> > have and add another one. (Normally packages can build on any
> > ha
Le 15/05/2012 22:27, Michael Banck a écrit :
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 09:45:43PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:42:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 16:18:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt
Andreas Barth (16/05/2012):
> Anyways, if the most concering issue is that there is currently only
> one swarm-type mips buildd, we could just use the spare machine we
> have and add another one. (Normally packages can build on any
> hardware, but sometimes it's more favourable to distribute packa
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120515 22:26]:
> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:42:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > I'd add a concern about the mips bui
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 22:10 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
[...]
> >>> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
>
> Should we add a row labeled "auto-signing" there?
[...]
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 09:45:43PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:42:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 16:18:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > > In an effort to stop this stalli
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 08:41:08PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> It might be worth considering as a criterion for wheezy+1, I'm not sure
> it's beneficial to enforce it as a blocker for wheezy. In any case,
> it's not really something that the porters can comment on / change,
> unless they also
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:42:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > I'd add a concern about the mips buildds to the arch qual page (not sure
> > > how to phrase it).
> >
> >
On 15/05/12 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:51 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 15/05/12 21:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
Shou
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:58:06 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> In any case, I'm not going to unilaterally add new criteria right now.
> If there's consensus that it should be included, then we can of course
> look at that.
>
... for the next release.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:51 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/05/12 21:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >> On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >>> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
> >>
> >> Should we add a row labeled
On 15/05/12 21:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
Should we add a row labeled "auto-signing" there?
auto-signing makes things less a PITA and make trans
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 20:42:14 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 16:18:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
> > > sending [1] to each of the por
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 16:18:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
> > sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
> >
> > Comments / changes / upda
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 21:22 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
>
> Should we add a row labeled "auto-signing" there?
>
> auto-signing makes things less a PITA and make transitions run (a bit)
> faster. It'd
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:58 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:18:19PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our
> > ears, we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of
> > release architectures for the W
On 15/05/12 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
Should we add a row labeled "auto-signing" there?
auto-signing makes things less a PITA and make transitions run (a bit)
faster. It'd be very nice if we could require auto-signing for release
architect
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:18:19PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
> sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
>
> Comments / changes / updates / whatever welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
> [1]
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 16:18:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
> sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
>
> Comments / changes / updates / whatever welcome.
>
I'd add a concern about the mi
On 2012-05-15 17:18, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In an effort to stop this stalling any further / longer, I propose
> sending [1] to each of the port lists, probably some time tomorrow.
>
> Comments / changes / updates / whatever welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
> [...]
>
>
Sounds goo
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Yeah, thanks for starting the wiki. Honestly I am not sure the wiki is
> the optimal place for it, but I guess it will do for now (and it is less
> likely to "disappear" than in the mail archive).
>
> I will try to see if we can kee
On 2012-05-05 02:53, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
Hi,
> I'm not DM/DD, but, I thought the summary you gave the other week [1]
> looked like a good starting point for a Wiki page of all
> considerations/concerns.
>
> Since the outcome of the archive qualification ought to be documente
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:24:48PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> in future. A minor concern I have is that I find it hard to get bug
> fixes reviewed and applied upstream.
For this part of the problem seems to be that the systems Debian chooses
to support are mostly not ones that get much active
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:37:56PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > Debian have access to at least one Power7 machine located at OSUOSL. The
> > machine list shows three LPAR running on it.
>
> Yes, the project has these resources. But a kernel porter will of
> course need to install and test
On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 09:48 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:24:48PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > * s390/s390x: Actively supported upstream by IBM.
>
> Sometimes to actively supported. :-)
>
> >Only runs in virtual
> >
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:24:48PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> * s390/s390x: Actively supported upstream by IBM.
Sometimes to actively supported. :-)
>Only runs in virtual
> machines,
It runs in three different environments: Bare hardware, LP
Steven Chamberlain (05/05/2012):
> I noticed on "the table" that no porter box is listed for kfreebsd-i386:
> http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
>
> Is that because io.debian.net is/was not working? Or is it?
FWIW from a previous IRC discussion, we have no DSA-admin'd porterboxe
Hi Niels,
I'm not DM/DD, but, I thought the summary you gave the other week [1]
looked like a good starting point for a Wiki page of all
considerations/concerns.
Since the outcome of the archive qualification ought to be documented
anyway, I went ahead and started off a new Wiki page [2] for this
On May 2, 2012 23:09 "Andreas Barth" wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120430 20:30]:
> > [...]
> >
> > So far there have only been two responses, one of which was from me.
> > :-/
> >
> > If this is due to people not liking the included dates, please
> > suggest
> > others.
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120430 20:30]:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 23:09 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 13:46 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > fwiw, the next sensible weekends (i.e. ignoring the one in a couple of
> > > days time) are May 5/6th - which
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 19:03 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 23:09 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > As mentioned on IRC, a Doodle for the former -
> > http://www.doodle.com/qxr4u5xa29yk3tid
>
> So far there have only been two responses, one of which was from me. :-/
Now up t
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 23:09 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 13:46 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > fwiw, the next sensible weekends (i.e. ignoring the one in a couple of
> > days time) are May 5/6th - which is a three-day holiday weekend in the
> > UK - and 12/13th, which i
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> On 12824 March 1977, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> """
>> The Debian GNU/Hurd port can almost completely be installed from the
>> official mirrors, using the standard Debian Installer.
>> """
>
>> Not sure if that means "we have imported packages" (which are not
>> showing up on
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120425 14:47]:
> fwiw, the next sensible weekends (i.e. ignoring the one in a couple of
> days time) are May 5/6th - which is a three-day holiday weekend in the
> UK - and 12/13th, which is the York BSP. I could do the latter but
> would prefer t
On 12824 March 1977, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [3]
> http://raphaelhertzog.com/2012/04/19/people-behind-debian-samuel-thibault-working-on-accessibility-and-the-hurd/
>
> """
> The Debian GNU/Hurd port can almost completely be installed from the
> official mirrors, using the standard Debian Installer.
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 13:46 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> fwiw, the next sensible weekends (i.e. ignoring the one in a couple of
> days time) are May 5/6th - which is a three-day holiday weekend in the
> UK - and 12/13th, which is the York BSP. I could do the latter but
> would prefer the for
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 23:19 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for meeting preps, I must admit that I found it rather difficult to
> work out what needs to be prepared.
I was largely hoping to avoid discussions around what people's feelings
on arches were and concentrate more on technical points. I
On 2012-04-25 14:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 22.04.2012 22:19, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
>> I originally wanted the length of the meeting to be an hour at most. I
>> had a draft agenda that I never got around to send out[1]. Looking back
>> at it now, I am not entirely sure if it is realis
On 22.04.2012 22:19, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2012-04-20 22:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the
meeting
till some time after Easter.
It's now distinctly after Easter, and we need to l
On 2012-04-20 22:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the meeting
>> till some time after Easter.
>
> It's now distinctly after Easter, and we need to look at rescheduling
> this.
>
> Do
On 2012-04-22 10:42, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:32:40PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the meeting
>>> till some time after Easter.
>>
>> It's now dis
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:32:40PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the meeting
> > till some time after Easter.
>
> It's now distinctly after Easter, and we need to look at resche
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the meeting
> till some time after Easter.
It's now distinctly after Easter, and we need to look at rescheduling
this.
Do we want to start from looking at dates, or working out how
On Mar 30, 2012 08:30 "Niels Thykier" wrote:
> On 2012-03-30 00:16, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Thanks. So one more time :).
>
> I propose we do an architecture qualification meeting over the Easter
> holidays. I have setup a doddle for it at [1].
>
> ~Niels
>
> [1] http://www.do
* Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net) [120330 08:31]:
> On 2012-03-30 00:16, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 23:52:02 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > With my DSA hat on:
> >
> > It would make sense to have someone from the DSA team present during
>
91 matches
Mail list logo
