[redirecting to -devel where this belongs]
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:11:59PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > --
> > > Question to the release and archive people: Is there such a
> > > requirement? Will such architectures inde
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> There is no way at the moment to see any progress of the issues in public.
> Now my question:
> 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> openly?
> 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so?
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
> > to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
> > noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Why would we need "more total CPU time"? Not even leisner is
> > overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
> > (leisner has a different problem, though).
>
> > Hence, please explai
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Why would we need "more total CPU time"? Not even leisner is
> overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
> (leisner has a different problem, though).
> Hence, please explain why we need "more total CPU time
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
> to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
> noticed some babbling about ppc64, sparc64, mips64 and s390x
> architectures but nothing
also sprach Ted Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.12.2220 +0100]:
> That is a tough question to answer. So far they have been getting
> the job done, but appear to be getting overworked lately.
Please define "lately"?
> For the good of the project, we need some way to let the sysadmin
> team
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
the past, there were some issues that seem to indicate that the current
Debian System Administrator team (DSA team) is overworked, as problems
were not adressed in a timely fashion. The following just lists some of
these iss
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Are bruckner and voltaire overloaded or do they lack services the
> > > developers
> > > need?
> >
> > The release team has called for a multi-arch implementation to support
> > powerpc64 userland over the biarch situation. Thi
Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Having two developers-accessi
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > Now my question:
> > >
> > > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> > > openly?
> > >
> >
Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port
> > > > > machines.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>Hi,
Hi Martin!
>Now my question:
>
>1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
>openly?
Yes, where possible. I'd like to see more openness everywhere in the
project, but I would understand if _som
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:03:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Are bruckner and voltaire overloaded or do they lack services the developers
> > need?
> The release team has called for a multi-arch implementation to support
> powerpc64 userland over the biarch situation. This calls for a machine
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:54:54PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > > developers accessible port mach
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > aside, I think there should be m
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible por
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Now my question:
> >
> > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> > openly?
> >
> > 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
> >
> > 3.) Do yo
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Now my question:
>
> 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> openly?
>
> 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
>
> 3.) Do you think more DSA are needed?
I would li
Hi,
the past, there were some issues that seem to indicate that the current
Debian System Administrator team (DSA team) is overworked, as problems
were not adressed in a timely fashion. The following just lists some of
these issues:
* Problems with one of the security.debian.org host network con
20 matches
Mail list logo
