[ Note Reply-To: set to debian-cd@lists.debian.org ]
Just a quick summary of release progress from the debian-cd team:
We're increasing the amount of space available for CD and DVD ISO
images on cdimage.debian.org so we can host full images for both woody
and sarge for a period after the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:09:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on
where I believe things are today. Nothing
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
(unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
architecture requirements:
I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
This may have been a strategical error, yes.
For me, the Vancouver meeting goal was obviously the sarge release and
IMHO, they achieved their goal very
Hi Ingo,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
hooked into w-b to upload
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hello, world,
| - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
| required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
ever
Are you happy with that?
People talking about Debian ? Sure.
Press misunderstanding issues, no, but this is not the first time.
Sure, we will have (we already have) a nice Internet rumour saying
Debian drops most architectures. But, well, we have rumours about
nearly anything alors une de plus
Quoting Florian Zumbiehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi,
now that the problems with my last bunch of bug reports on mostly its
vs. it's mistakes some months ago seem to be solved, I've found another
load of typos of the a vs. an flavor, about 110 in total.
please please please...for anything which
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
team does: build them
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:07:47 +0100, Christian Perrier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal concern now is avoiding to throw out the baby with the
bath's water as we say in French.
Dropping the majority of our archictecture is exactly throwing out the
baby with the bath's water (we have the same
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
As Steve wrote
| The reality is that keeping eleven
| architectures in a releasable state has been a major source of work for
| the release team, the d-i team, and the kernel team over the past year;
| not to mention the time
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:59:55 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
or they just have their reasons not
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:23:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 15:35]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Our goal is that the queue gets
Hi Aurélien,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Steve Langasek a écrit :
The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:50, Anthony Towns wrote:
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
That's why it's posted on the lists now -- it never too late to get
input into something in Debian; even after we've committed to
something, we can almost always change our minds.
er, saying we've
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:04, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
Do not expect mirror admins to run Debian, and to be willing to
pull smart mirroring tricks.
What do they use now ?
I know
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
Yes, I would like to reiterate that coordination between Martin Pitt, the
Ubuntu kernel team, and
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schmitt) writes:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
*should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
sorted
Sven Luther wrote:
There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is not
in the loop for getting advance advice on those problems, so we cannot build
fixed versions until the vulnerability gets
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:36, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, as long as the discussion is on dropping from the mirror network,
yes, you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing
altogether, isn't it ?
Quoting from the Nybbles proposal:
[...] the list of release candidate
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the number of matching source packages that we need
to keep around
Hi Andreas!
You wrote:
As Steve wrote
| The reality is that keeping eleven
| architectures in a releasable state has been a major source of work for
| the release team, the d-i team, and the kernel team over the past year;
| not to mention the time spent by the DSA/buildd admins and the
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Both are currently happening. The current release and security teams
say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump
up and prove them wrong by creating
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
building these archs.
As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC,
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:49, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have eternal security support for m68k
(or whatever compiles the kernel most slowly), but if I don't get that
choice, given late or never I'll happily take the former.
Then read the Nybbles proposal as a
* Andreas Barth
| For example, the more architectures are included the longer the migration
| testing script takes. We are already at the limit currently (and also
| have out-of-memory issues from time to time). For example, currently we
| restrict the number of some hints to only 5 per day to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:21:21AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is
not
in the loop for getting advance advice on those problems, so
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think the only criteria m68k fails are the 2 buildds have to
suffice to keep up with etch and the 10% download shares.
The second criterion is only for the mirror network, not for tier-1. Please
read the Nybbles proposal again:
the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
- binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
(required, among other reasons, for license compliance)
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of
really fast box with lots of RAM, and has
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:58, Christian Kurz wrote:
On [14/03/05 19:05], David Schmitt wrote:
They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
Pardon, but where do you see any public e-Mail from any of the the
people doing release, ftpmaster, etc. asking for help? I've yet so see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
than IA64 last year.
Which of these two architectures are you more
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I also have no objection to releasing stable later on some archs, or not
at all, of nobody from those archs works to do it.
I do object to preventing those archs from releasing stable, and
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there.
Bill Allombert a écrit :
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of
really fast box
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this
Project.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Frank Küster wrote:
I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competent,
active people will start
On Monday 14 March 2005 20:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If it weren't for sarge blocking us we would have submitted multiarch
patches as early as one year ago. Should we start submitting / NMUing
them for _experimental_ now to get this change running and tested? Or
should we keep waiting
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 10:50]:
* Andreas Barth
| For example, the more architectures are included the longer the migration
| testing script takes. We are already at the limit currently (and also
| have out-of-memory issues from time to time). For example, currently we
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au schrieb:
Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all?
AFAIK, the terminology is FCC/SCC for mirror split, and release-arch
and non-release-arch for which arches get released as stable. So the
question is how do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
| Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
| done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there.
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 00:00]:
Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an Architecture: field
instead. That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you
want to achieve here.
Yes, that sounds well.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:54AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
Could you be more clear about this ? which issues are those ?
Sven, Steve is referring to the first part of his mail, where he says that
building from testing will lose any of
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always
been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about
their corner of the project.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:58:44 +0100, Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, world,
Hello, Andi.
Nice to hear from you.
Please allow me another remark: That meeting didn't finalize the release
goals for etch. We talked about some of course - like we do on IRC quite
often, but we didn't
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elsewhere I believe Steve mentioned, that earlier versions had tier-1 ==
ftp.d.o, but that this was dropped
Yes, although it requires thorough reading, this is what the Vancouver
proposal seems to say.
(exactly because of arches like s390 who
should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder also, do we still not have some sun donated sparc box running part of
our infrastructure ? How will that stay if we drop sparc support ?
According to db.d.o:
- auric: RAID is dead (and auric is
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:10, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
towards making Debian, and the ftpmasters are doing a decent chop of
things too.
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Julien BLACHE wrote:
For $DEITY's sake. Will you please understand that the Ubuntu folks
totally failed to inform their fellows about what was going on ? And
at the time, there was no Canonical website, no Ubuntu website. Only a
handful of patches up on no-name-yet.
I think we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only
tagged with a SCC arch should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, the architecture handling is controversial. Fine...this will
probably delay etch more than we would like. But could we please focus
on releasing sarge first? By focus, I also mean avoidn wasting
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
out of there to provide serious support
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:58:44 +0100, Andreas Barth
I was asked quite often via IRC what the reasonings for this kind of
proposal were. I'll answer the reasons from the release point of view - but
please remember that there are also ftp-masters/mirror concerns
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
*blink*. Are you high?
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 03:09, Anthony Towns wrote:
Soon everyone loves you, and you get a huge userbase, and hit 10% of
i386+amd64 downloads or five times powerpc's current userbase or so, and
say I wanna be on ftp.d.o!! Then you get moved across over a month or
so, and become a tier-1 arch.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
2.*2* kernels in sarge?
Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right now.
* Andreas Barth
| Well, that was one of the examples where we pay a price for more
| architectures. Of course, the testing migration script is not all, and
| this problem can be solved, but I think we should not forget that we pay
| a price - even if at the end, we think the price is acceptable.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:28:38 +1100
Source: vile
Binary: xvile vile-filters vile vile-common
Architecture: all i386 powerpc source sparc
Version: 9.4-r1
thanks. For 9.5, the short list
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
connections that are implied by the activation of another build queue...
Is there an underlying reason why the
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Mark Brown wrote:
Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
added by d-i?
It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and stable.
The
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
I'd propose to use a less
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, David Schmitt wrote:
And if the security team is not able to support those arches as-is, someone
will have to step up and do the work. Overly long delays for security updates
also diminish the usefulness of $arch.
I guess I missed the Call for help on security issues on
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:58:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that
That doesn't. I see
I'm willing to provide an OpenVPN tunnel to an SMTP server for any DD who is
unable to find alternate lodgings, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
I can offer something as well - I would probably lean towards just
auth+ssl instead of over VPN, but it's up to you. I just don't
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 02:55 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the
On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would add as for the core set architecture:
- there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
architecture.
This gets a little tricky for non-RC architectures, because if it's not
already (or currently) a released architecture, we
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
better options than trying to build out of testing.
Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
2.*2* kernels in sarge?
Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:04:53PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
I'm willing to provide an OpenVPN tunnel to an SMTP server for any DD who
is
unable to find alternate lodgings, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only
one.
I can offer something as well - I would probably lean
* Christian Perrier [Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:24:57 +0100]:
Indeed, typo and spell corrections should not need translation updates
and affected translations can certainly be unfuzzied.WHEN ONE
KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS CLEANLY...:-)
I've never had to to such thing, but I've wondered from time to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why they don't ask for help?
They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
Yes, we are. There are enough interested people here to replace the
current people in charge.
A coup. Yep,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:38:51AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 10:50]:
Debian has a fairly big chunk of cash lying about. If we have
problems doing testing migration because of not enough hardware, this
is something I think we should spend
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:55]:
I wonder if we could simply use the current support in britney for
declaring that an architecture isn't keeping up to date and that any
problems with it shouldn't block the rest of testing.
In that case, it might be better in the long term to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
autobuilding and do it themselves; all the software is free software.
[..]
We did that last year for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:47:37AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
in-development ports.
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Having said this, this all doesn't exclude the possibility for a
non-release arch to have some testing which can be (mostly) in sync with
the release architectures testing - just that if it breaks, the release
team is not forced anymore to hold the
| - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
| required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
ever suffered from buildd backlogs. :)
We want that all unstable packages are directly
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
With the new proposal of de facto dropping m68k support, I'm this -- close
to recommend to Roman, that he better should invest his time into other
projects, because Debian wouldn't appreciate his work to bring up another
public
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
everyone turned on a platter
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
autobuilding and do it themselves; all
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
everyone turned on a platter
Hi,
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:40]:
* Andreas Barth
| (And, BTW, newraff is a quite mature box. Of course, there is always
| more and better hardware available, but newraff is already a very good
| machine. And, we want to give the testing migration script more tasks,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:11:11 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the long run, it might be even possible to get along with the stable
sources alone, plus a second, tier-2-specific diff.gz - if I'm not
mistaken it is planned to enable dpkg to work with a more flexible
format for source
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:54:51 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
The problem is that it is extremely hard to be allowed to do any work
for Debian, and I think that should change. I know of two core teams
in Debian which have more than
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 13:45]:
| - the release architecture must have successfully compiled 98% of the
| archive's source (excluding architecture-specific packages)
well, that's just an the architecture is basically working, so that we
don't get too many
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
added by d-i?
It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:45]:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
connections that are implied by the activation of
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
[quoting Andreas Barth]
| - the release architecture must have successfully compiled 98% of the
| archive's source (excluding architecture-specific packages)
well, that's just an the architecture is basically working, so that we
don't get
On 15 Mar 2005 12:01:40 GMT, Michael Ablassmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By destroying the Project ? Interesting approach.
As this is just a _proposal_, you are free to suggest alternative
approaches on how to solve the Problems the Project
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:17:59 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
cold. Users who choose Debian because
1 - 100 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
