Kevin Mark wrote:
Given the fact that the current standard installation installs both gcc,
gdb and other development packages weighting more than that (see #301138,
which nobody wants to fix)
Sorry to interupt, just got a stupid idea, if as Javier suggests, there
are bugs that no one
On Mon, April 11, 2005 21:46, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña said:
Given the fact that the current standard installation installs both gcc,
gdb and other development packages weighting more than that (see #301138,
which nobody wants to fix) I don't find that an issue.
After reading that bug I
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:24:48AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Kevin Mark wrote:
Given the fact that the current standard installation installs both gcc,
gdb and other development packages weighting more than that (see #301138,
which nobody wants to fix)
Sorry to interupt, just got a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:07:13AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
If a tee-shirt with 'I
fixed the oldest bug in Debian, and all I got was this lousey tee-shirt'
helps to motivate folks -- great by me! And great for our users and
Debian!
And then, as if by magic
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 22:14, David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just that it is not lost: SELinux soft support (patched utilities available
in main). There seems to be a repository that mostly works (I'm not in the
loop about currentness though) and it'd is probably an important step
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:50:23PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
For people who don't use SE Linux the support in those programs will only
take
a few K of disk space and will not give a performance overhead.
Given the fact that the current standard installation installs both gcc,
gdb and
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:50:23PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
For people who don't use SE Linux the support in those programs will only
take
a few K of disk space and will not give a performance overhead.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Since when are you following these issues ? and what experience do you have
with how debian works ? And did you read Anthony's post on how this worked
out.
Since 1998 I think, and I experienced first hand how difficult is to get
something through some
On 21-Mar-05, 14:45 (CST), Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HP still produces both workstations and servers with PA-RISK processors.
Yeah, we had one of those. I'm surprised they're still making them; the
PA-RISC series is lot
n Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
this?
Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
upload? This
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:23:05PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst
| On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
| Darren Salt wrote:
| I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
| Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:23:05PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst
| Because it's cool. In both senses of the word (have you ever had to
| measure the temperature of an i386 box?)
(amd64, but I guess the point still applies):
Not exactly, as I assume the amd64 designers
* Sven Luther
| And what is the size of the fan, and how much noise does it generate ?
My home box is a 92mm which generates 20dB. The other one I'm not
sure about, but probably a noisy 60mm (since it's in a server room and
I don't care about noise there).
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
have had to are, in no discernable order:
1) processing new RC bug reports to set sarge/sid tags appropriately, so
that the RC bug list for sarge
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
have had to are, in no discernable order:
1) processing new RC bug
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:55:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
snip very long and excellent explanation
having a common kernel package will greatly simplify the parts of this process
which involve the kernel-team, and let you just do the security fix, build and
upload (either auto-built or
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:55:17PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I
shouldn't
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
have had to are, in no discernable order:
1) processing new RC bug reports to set
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:20:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I
shouldn't
have had to
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:13:13PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[1] The installer might be a point, but
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:57AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
care of that more easily. That's awesome.
We have that
Steve Langasek wrote:
One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool,
whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror
operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted
architectures, all or both.
Why not go the full way? What I've
Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
For sarge, kernels are built in a two-stage process. First is to create
a dsfg-free .deb from the upstream source which contains a source
tarball, second is to build kernel images from another (arch-specific)
.deb which build-depends on the source .deb. In the
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands, and *that's*it*.
Any required fanciness need to be done on the master server.
But that's your choice.
[ Rather silly dialogue deleted ]
The choice is to either
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like We use s390
to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
workstations they
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:48:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
I am currently in the process of acquiring rotated out of production
machines for 3 of the 5 architectures I support. I make a run to the
right-coast of the US once
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
former method of freezing unstable, and even more do I doubt it's worth
sacrificing 8
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[snip]
m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
of
it, but it'd be trivial to replace with i386.
Aren't the first three of these also actively being used
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Joey Schulze has already said that doing security support for two
architectures is exactly as hard as doing security support for twenty
architectures, so the point about supporting stable is kindof moot. The
same isn't true for testing, obviously.
Joey gets to say this
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:17:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
For sarge, kernels are built in a two-stage process. First is to create
a dsfg-free .deb from the upstream source which contains a source
tarball, second is to build kernel images from another
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to
what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without mirrors
(OK, OK ... fewer mirrors anyway), which is something I don't think we'd
want.
The whole point of SCC was
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:14:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
This proposal is, first and foremost, about setting concrete criteria that
we can hold the ports to for etch, to get away from wishy-washy, one more
week for kernel updates on $arch, $arch2 isn't doing so well, maybe we
should
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:22:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
I don't think this is a good idea. I'm thinking something like this
could
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:49:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:11:21PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
How many *.debian.org machines are actually *owned* by the project or DDs?
All of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be *.debian.org.
Please define owned.
Okay, I
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:04:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Joey Schulze has already said that doing security support for two
architectures is exactly as hard as doing security support for twenty
architectures, so the point about supporting stable is kindof moot. The
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:50:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like We use s390
to host 6231
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:36:38AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:45PM +0100]:
And would a larger discussion at debconf'05 not have been more appropriate
than handing done a couple of taken decision disguised as proposal ?
It is not too late
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to
what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without mirrors
(OK, OK ... fewer mirrors anyway),
* Wouter Verhelst
| On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
| Darren Salt wrote:
| I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
| Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
| for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:45:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Most work for embedded systems would be cross-compiled from faster
systems anyway.
The price for that is a serious lack of testing. Debian stable provides
known good binaries.
I didn't mean that we
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to
what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without
Hi Bill,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:50:05AM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, the release team are not the only Debian developers with credibility,
surely? Not everything needs to go through us; if the project has the will
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use fancier mirroring software.
We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:22:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
But it could be an unstable chroot, while their day-to-day work is done with
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:24:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
beyond unstable + snapshotting facility, and why? Debian developers
manage to develop on unstable fairly well, eg, why isn't that enough? Is
this just a PR issue, in that unstable and snapshot aren't something
you can put on a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:25:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the work of maintaining a separate testing-esque
suite. If the porters want to do the work they should be allowed to do
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:48:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
BTW, I am not sure this is really a good way to measure the use of an
architecture, mainly because users could use a local mirror if they
have
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
installer rewrite planned
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
AFAI can tell, anybody can
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
Because you don't want a 100+W
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As a mirror operator, I think
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 18:40]:
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
subset? This way, there's no need to mirror
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 15:25]:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run
non-security-supported
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
Because
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
[...]
- there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
of problems with buildds are caused by buildd admins unavailable at the
same time for a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
will have a working installer
On Mar 20, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool,
whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror
operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted
architectures, all or both.
This
Guys:
Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
I have a fairly reliable DSL line, with an unused Sun Blade 100 and a
number of ARM and MIPS boards behind it. If anyone wants to help me get
them set up for buildd, drop me an email.
b.g.
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will
be
streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
You know, you keep saying this and I
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands, and *that's*it*.
Any required fanciness need to be done on the master server.
But that's your choice.
--I want to do this thing which you tell me not to do, and it hurts
when I do it.
--So stop doing
I demand that Bill Gatliff may or may not have written...
Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
It's not my preference to be Cc'd, particularly when I'd set the
Mail-Followup-To header accordingly... :-\
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:06:23PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time
believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please
enlighten me if I'm wrong.
The plan is to profit from better upstream
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
[...]
- there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
of problems with buildds
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
care of that more easily. That's awesome.
We have that already.
Great to hear. Then what is this new plan that the kernel
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:23:18AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
small snip Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best embedded Linux
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
BTW, I am not sure this is really a good way to measure the use of an
architecture, mainly because users could use a local mirror if they have
a lot of machines of the same architecture. How about using popcon *in
On Mar 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As a mirror operator, I think that this sucks. Badly.
So don't duplicate
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from
stable
sources for a
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:45PM +0100]:
And would a larger discussion at debconf'05 not have been more appropriate
than handing done a couple of taken decision disguised as proposal ?
It is not too late for this yet, but there needs to be a real discussion
with
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As a mirror
Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like We use s390
to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
workstations they use; the software we use is ;
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them, and
duplication is kept to a
Scripsit Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Henning Makholm wrote:
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the work of maintaining a separate testing-esque
suite. If the porters want to do the work they should be allowed to do
it.
If they
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Which delays are expected for etch, that are not only imposed by the
usage of testing for release purposes? [1]
I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
former method of freezing unstable,
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them, and
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
I think Sarge on ARM has the potential to greatly reduce the learning
curve for some kinds of embedded development, especially if Iyonix
succeeds in its niche (long live the Acorn!).
So, I looked at
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather not
waste a few GB on duplicated files.
This may be a stupid question, but if you already mirror full-monty, what
would you gain by also mirroring
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
snapshots. Apart from writing software for embedded arm things, I can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use fancier mirroring software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:37:11PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
are not going to be left out in the cold.
I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore
On Friday 18 March 2005 07:27, Karsten Merker wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
of it, but it'd be trivial to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
All the stuff is on scc; how do we transfer it back? Will it be easy,
or a major obstacle?
There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:00:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Both of these are plausible; the difference is whether you autobuild
from unstable or testing. I would prefer the former, which means your
former case.
Autobuilding from testing won't work well AFAICS, as it introduces
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I would really like to see some real use cases for architectures that
want this; I'd like to spend my time on things that're actually useful,
not random whims people have on lists -- and at the moment,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:18:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as Colin
Watson points out in
Sven Luther wrote:
I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
anyway. If there aren't any users, then there's no much point doing any
development. Are there any users? If so, what are they doing?
Cheers,
aj
--
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best
AJ's categorization has some traction, but I think it's a somewhat
short-term perspective. Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
probably the best
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, the release team are not the only Debian developers with credibility,
surely? Not everything needs to go through us; if the project has the will
to do stable releases of these architectures, in spite of the release team
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
None of those are enough to justify effort maintaining a separate
testing-esque suite for them; but surely someone has some better
examples they can post...
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
How is the layout of scc.debian.org planned to look like? Separate
arch.scc.debian.org (or scc.debian.org/arch/...) archives or a
single one which needs partial mirroring tricks? Will arch:all be
duplicated there or will it need to be fetched from some other
1 - 100 of 791 matches
Mail list logo
