Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 12:24:19AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:41:30PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:50:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:14:33PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. But you never managed to get SMP working on it, right ? SMP works but I was having problems where it would crash after 3 or 4 months of uptime in the software raid1 code. This was with 2.4 kernels though.. I have not tried a recent 2.6 kernel yet. FYI, linux-image-2.6.15-1-powerpc-smp version 2.6.15-8 works on my MTX board. kalmia:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 cpu : 604ev clock : 300MHz revision: 1.0 (pvr 000a 0100) bogomips: 297.98 processor : 1 cpu : 604ev clock : 300MHz revision: 1.0 (pvr 000a 0100) bogomips: 297.98 total bogomips : 595.96 machine : PReP Dual MTX w/ Parallel Port l2 cache: none simms : Well, i believe the current situation is that debian will produce only UP prep images, until prep is reunited in the ARCH=powerpc fold. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:41:30PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:50:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:14:33PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. But you never managed to get SMP working on it, right ? SMP works but I was having problems where it would crash after 3 or 4 months of uptime in the software raid1 code. This was with 2.4 kernels though.. I have not tried a recent 2.6 kernel yet. FYI, linux-image-2.6.15-1-powerpc-smp version 2.6.15-8 works on my MTX board. kalmia:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 cpu : 604ev clock : 300MHz revision: 1.0 (pvr 000a 0100) bogomips: 297.98 processor : 1 cpu : 604ev clock : 300MHz revision: 1.0 (pvr 000a 0100) bogomips: 297.98 total bogomips : 595.96 machine : PReP Dual MTX w/ Parallel Port l2 cache: none simms : -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On May 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:09:08PM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:41:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? Thanks for the info. Friendly, Sven Luther SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. I was referring to the IBM 7043. No idea how it applies to the MTX. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:50:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:14:33PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. But you never managed to get SMP working on it, right ? SMP works but I was having problems where it would crash after 3 or 4 months of uptime in the software raid1 code. This was with 2.4 kernels though.. I have not tried a recent 2.6 kernel yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:14:33PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. But you never managed to get SMP working on it, right ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:09:08PM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:41:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? Thanks for the info. Friendly, Sven Luther SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. I have a Motorola MTX PreP system with dual 604e's that I can test this on. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 07:09:08PM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:41:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? Thanks for the info. Friendly, Sven Luther SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. Ah, ok, then it makes no sense to build a special kernel for those, until more information is found about the above. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMP PReP (was Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...)
On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:41:28 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? Thanks for the info. Friendly, Sven Luther SMP never worked under Linux on those machines because the AIX boot sequence to enable it was never successfully reverse-engineered. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On 5/17/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: On 5/12/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn commit acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been too proud and afraid to lose face. Better: do like Linus, and take away access from all but one person. BSD has always had nasty fights over commit access. Commit bits are greatly political in nature. They can not be removed without hurt. Thus the existance of OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD. Linux doesn't suffer this way. The closest thing ever was the IDE maintainer being changed a couple times. (so avoid MAINTAINERS files too) Feelings can't get hurt all that much if there isn't any status to revoke. Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone. It does mean forking and fragmentation of the code base, which would not be best for d-i and debian. But yes, having a distributed revision system would be helpful in these cases, and if people don't come to their sense and this issue be solved, i will be left only to create a svk-based duplicate of the d-i svn repo, and make this one the authoritative version for the packages i upload or changes i make. Imagine the mess this will cause :) Forking and fragmentation vs. BSD-style fights? No contest. Linux has been forked about a zillion times, but the developers don't mind the mess at all. People just merge every which way using git. If people come to their sense, they'll never again grant commit bits to more than one person. BTW, the Wine project has a nice comparison. It seems that git is much more compact than svk. (big surprise for me) It's well-known for being very fast.
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:44:56AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: Forking and fragmentation vs. BSD-style fights? No contest. Linux has been forked about a zillion times, but the developers don't mind the mess at all. People just merge every which way using git. Well, yes, but the linux distributed development model, is a bit different than the centralized subversion using d-i development model. In a way it is a bit strange that d-i was developped as a componentized and developped model, but all is hold in a single debian sub-archive and a single centralized subversion repository. If people come to their sense, they'll never again grant commit bits to more than one person. Maybe. A centralized repo is a good thing for a more intertwined grouped development model. BTW, the Wine project has a nice comparison. It seems that git is much more compact than svk. (big surprise for me) It's well-known for being very fast. it is ways more difficult to understand than svn is, especially from someone coming from CVS. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:18:28AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: On 5/12/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn commit acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been too proud and afraid to lose face. Better: do like Linus, and take away access from all but one person. BSD has always had nasty fights over commit access. Commit bits are greatly political in nature. They can not be removed without hurt. Thus the existance of OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD. Linux doesn't suffer this way. The closest thing ever was the IDE maintainer being changed a couple times. (so avoid MAINTAINERS files too) Feelings can't get hurt all that much if there isn't any status to revoke. Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone. It does mean forking and fragmentation of the code base, which would not be best for d-i and debian. But yes, having a distributed revision system would be helpful in these cases, and if people don't come to their sense and this issue be solved, i will be left only to create a svk-based duplicate of the d-i svn repo, and make this one the authoritative version for the packages i upload or changes i make. Imagine the mess this will cause :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
Hi Frans, (I am answering this email in the same group, as it also addresses some of the problems of various mailinglists and has its home on debian-powerpc.) On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Monday 08 May 2006 11:18, you wrote: it was brought to my attention that you are not reading debian-powerpc, thus I am forwarding my email to you directly. That is correct, mainly as I do not have a powerpc system myself. For being a very important list to powerpc users, it was underinformed about the incident. b) The social and personal side is important. Sven's emails are clearly showing this, but some of the responses by Thomas and others did not reflect this. Yes, but Sven's emails are also only showing one side of the issue. It is only natural that Sven's emails show his side which I have considered before answering. Still others answered with technical arguments only, which stroke me as strange. My point in general is, that this is not a nice way to treat a volunteer and does the organisation no good, no matter how bad a volunteer might have behaved. I have not replied to the various threads because I have no interest in prolonging this discussion. Best to avoid a long discussion is to have a clear and understandable statement you can point people to. To me not having this from the start clearly has prolonged the discussion. The second reason was that there was a mediation going on by the DPL and his second in command and I did not want to interfere in that. This is a good reason to hold communication for a while. I am bit astonished by the result of the mediation, though, as there obviously was no agreement between made between the parties. That is sad. My part is: Writing this comment to help the situation. I am also speaking up to support Sven. I believe that he was bit badly treated in the thread. No matter what he did to contribute to the situation, this list has people which are new to the problem. Well, I'm afraid we disagree there and I don't feel that someone who has not followed all that's happened over the last year on the various lists and IRC channels (mostly d-boot and d-kernel, but elsewhere as well) can really judge the rights and wrongs here. As I have stated earlier: I have only read debian-powerpc and been working from this. As there will be other people doing so, Sven, just like anybody, deserves a fair treatment to this audience, which cannot know what has happened on other channels. Also, this is not really about right or wrong, but about having some fun while working on Debian in general and the installer in particular. Having fun is very important when it comes to a volunteer based project and I'm afraid that Sven was reducing the fun for several core members of the d-i team in a way that has become unacceptable. Giving an understandable examples in a statement for this, would be fair treatment. This would be a step after personal communication to try to improve the situation has failed. Assuming that Sven had the distressing personal situation he wrote about, there should be enough base to make a new attempt and forgive some of the heat. To me it still actually looks like this was used to Sven's disadvantage which I would not have happen to me on a general basis. But that is beside the point, if you and the other core members of the d-i team are not willing to do this, no one can force you. What could have been done better? If Sven's commit rights have been revoked and he got kicked out, it would be very good to give a reasonable explanation that people can be point people to. The usage of the phrase kicked by Sven, seems to indicate that there was no common position why he left the d-i team. Kicking out Sven from the d-i team had already been discussed twice this year. Eventually we did not have to kick him out as Sven himself resigned from the team. If the personal situation Sven write about is true, you cannot really count the resignation. We (I) revoked his commit access mainly because of the broken personal relationships between Sven and other members of the d-i team. IMO it is not good that someone who is not friendly towards a team has commit access to their source repository. In the long run that will only lead to new conflicts. It is much better to have a clean break and maybe resume a normal working relation later on when things have calmed down and people are willing to work together again. I agree with the clean break, if both conflicting parties agree to it. Note that it is just as easy to grant commit access as it is to revoke it and I do not exclude the possibility that Sven will be allowed commit access again in the future. There will have to be major changes in his attitude for that to happen though. I am assuming that Sven knows those criticism of him. And my hope is there is a good
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On 5/12/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn commit acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been too proud and afraid to lose face. Better: do like Linus, and take away access from all but one person. BSD has always had nasty fights over commit access. Commit bits are greatly political in nature. They can not be removed without hurt. Thus the existance of OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD. Linux doesn't suffer this way. The closest thing ever was the IDE maintainer being changed a couple times. (so avoid MAINTAINERS files too) Feelings can't get hurt all that much if there isn't any status to revoke. Both SVN and CVS have a server-centric model that ultimately leads to nasty poltics. The alternatives are git, Mercurial, and monotone.
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: I have not replied to the various threads because I have no interest in prolonging this discussion. The second reason was that there was a mediation going on by the DPL and his second in command and I did not want to interfere in that. There was an easy way not to problong the discussion. Restore the svn commit acces, which you could have done all those weeks ago if you had not been too proud and afraid to lose face. The DPL mediation failed. I don't know why exactly, as it was less than transparent, and altough the DPL concluded you where right in removing the svn commit access, he gave no reason why, and i believe that those reasons are some none of you are proud to tell in public. Anyway, the DPL mediation failed mostly because you refused any compromise, unless it was because it was not a real mediation attempt, i can't know, i have no idea of what passed between you and the DPL and delegates. My part is: Writing this comment to help the situation. I am also speaking up to support Sven. I believe that he was bit badly treated in the thread. No matter what he did to contribute to the situation, this list has people which are new to the problem. Well, I'm afraid we disagree there and I don't feel that someone who has not followed all that's happened over the last year on the various lists and IRC channels (mostly d-boot and d-kernel, but elsewhere as well) can really judge the rights and wrongs here. Also, this is not really about right or wrong, but about having some fun while working on Debian in general and the installer in particular. Having fun is very important when it comes to a volunteer based project and I'm afraid that Sven was reducing the fun for several core members of the d-i team in a way that has become unacceptable. And i am afraid that you, not counting joeyh, vorlon and Kamion, have kicked all fun of me working for debian over a year ago now. So, basically, you are saying that it is better to get ride of me because i am only one guy, and most importantly, i am not the one who has the power ? What could have been done better? If Sven's commit rights have been revoked and he got kicked out, it would be very good to give a reasonable explanation that people can be point people to. The usage of the phrase kicked by Sven, seems to indicate that there was no common position why he left the d-i team. Kicking out Sven from the d-i team had already been discussed twice this year. Eventually we did not have to kick him out as Sven himself resigned from the team. Err. There is no worse deaf as the one who doesn't want to hear. At least you could be honest enough without yourself and don't use this argument anymore. The chronology is as follows : 1) i had personal trouble, because my mother was dying of breast-and-loung cancer, because she lived alone in el-salvador, working on humanitarian causes, and failed to come back to europe to cure herself because the work needed to be done. I learned about this around the same time Andres tried to kick me from debian, and traveled to support her and try to bring her back to france, to see if a cure was still possible. I was 2 weeks there, where she was without medical assistance, with only her husband and me at home. In the end we traveled back to france, but it was too stressful, and she died 24 hours after arriving here. 2) One evening, she had a severe respiratory crisis and almost died. This was a really difficult time to me, as any of you can guess, seeing some one you care almost die, when night arrives, alone in a home thousands of kilometer from your home, without real medical support. 3) After the crisis pased, i went to read debian-powerpc to help take my mind from the situation, and escape some. I saw Shaymal having problems with d-i, and posting to debian-powerpc. I informed him that he should not post such stuff to debian-powerpc, mostly because i was the only of the d-i team following it, but directly file a bug report, or at least write to debian-boot or CC it. I gave some advice, but given the situation, it was ill advised. Shaymal did so. He or i CCed debain-boot, and he filled a bug report if i remember well. 4) Within minutes, there was the immediate backlash from Frans, where not only he bashed on me as he used to do since some month, but also said it was all my fault, and it was an issue of the powerpc buildd failing, which i learned there. As you can guess i was in no position to do regular inspection of the build logs, particularly, since for some strange reason i have not yet discovered, the cron emails get rejected by my [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. 5) Now, these failure came from an abi change in libnewt, which meant my auto-upgrade solution failed. The rest of the d-i team knew about this since a few days
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...]
(Original message quoted in full as I'm CCing d-boot and several others. Unfortunately the original message is already quite complex.) On Monday 08 May 2006 11:18, you wrote: it was brought to my attention that you are not reading debian-powerpc, thus I am forwarding my email to you directly. That is correct, mainly as I do not have a powerpc system myself. b) The social and personal side is important. Sven's emails are clearly showing this, but some of the responses by Thomas and others did not reflect this. Yes, but Sven's emails are also only showing one side of the issue. I have not replied to the various threads because I have no interest in prolonging this discussion. The second reason was that there was a mediation going on by the DPL and his second in command and I did not want to interfere in that. My part is: Writing this comment to help the situation. I am also speaking up to support Sven. I believe that he was bit badly treated in the thread. No matter what he did to contribute to the situation, this list has people which are new to the problem. Well, I'm afraid we disagree there and I don't feel that someone who has not followed all that's happened over the last year on the various lists and IRC channels (mostly d-boot and d-kernel, but elsewhere as well) can really judge the rights and wrongs here. Also, this is not really about right or wrong, but about having some fun while working on Debian in general and the installer in particular. Having fun is very important when it comes to a volunteer based project and I'm afraid that Sven was reducing the fun for several core members of the d-i team in a way that has become unacceptable. What could have been done better? If Sven's commit rights have been revoked and he got kicked out, it would be very good to give a reasonable explanation that people can be point people to. The usage of the phrase kicked by Sven, seems to indicate that there was no common position why he left the d-i team. Kicking out Sven from the d-i team had already been discussed twice this year. Eventually we did not have to kick him out as Sven himself resigned from the team. We (I) revoked his commit access mainly because of the broken personal relationships between Sven and other members of the d-i team. IMO it is not good that someone who is not friendly towards a team has commit access to their source repository. In the long run that will only lead to new conflicts. It is much better to have a clean break and maybe resume a normal working relation later on when things have calmed down and people are willing to work together again. Note that it is just as easy to grant commit access as it is to revoke it and I do not exclude the possibility that Sven will be allowed commit access again in the future. There will have to be major changes in his attitude for that to happen though. I should have informed Sven that his commit access had been revoked and I have apologized for failing to do that on other lists. c) I have the feeling of an incomplete picture. Sven, you could have pointed to the reasons why your commit rights have been revoked or that those reasons are missing right on the start. That would have helped me. But also others could help to to get more clear about this. What is the d-i position on not wanting Sven? Are there already explanations somebody could point me to? See above. I'm not willing to repeat all the individual incidents as I feel that would not help the current situation. d) Thomas disregarded Sven's estimation about the diffculties of the d-i efforts and the port. I think this is a mistake on the technical side, Sven has experience and his estimations deserve a sound evaluation and a serious rebuttal. Of course he is not the only competent person, but this does not discredit his estimations. On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:21:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 27 April 2006 13:39, Sven Luther wrote: I revoked your commit rights immediately after your resignation from the team because I felt (and I still do) that things had deteriorated so much that the d-i team was better of without any involvement from you. Frans, this can be okay (without knowing what the probkems are), but .. Also, I did not want any interference in the work of (the) new powerpc porter(s). I fail to see how Sven giving a hand would be that bad (even without commit rights), at the worst case he would need to be ignored which seems worth the risk to me. I have no problems with that and it is part of the proposal from the DPL. The fact that you attempted to fix the cd building breakage without first consulting is proof that that was not unjustified. This might have been a documentable case where clear requirements of d-i commit rights (as I imagine
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 07:58:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Replying in private, as i have agreed to refrain from posting while the DPL mediation team searches a compromise. It is good to hear that a mediation team is trying to help. My post was not to fuel a flamefest and I believe that personal talks will have the best chance for success (as pointed out in my email). I could not simply find out who that team is. Can you point me towards it? Note: I have also forwarded my Email to Frans as it was brought to my attention that he does not read debian-powerpc. pgpPOTZBPMlab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Hi Sven, Frans, Thomas and Joey, having read this thread on debian-powerpc, I would like to comment as a largely uninvolved bystander that is thankful for the hard workers for Debian GNU/Linux. Note that I have only read the emails on this list which is the basis for my humble opinion. a) I think it was good that Sven brought up the issue which includes a technical and social side. Sven, thanks for doing so. b) The social and personal side is important. Sven's emails are clearly showing this, but some of the responses by Thomas and others did not reflect this. Leadership in all part of Debian should accept that there is a personal side. If Sven would have my volunteer I would have sought a personal contact with Sven and other participants trying to find out what is actually going on. (Whether this has happend or not of course, I cannot say.) Such problems always have more then one contributor and most of the time it is not good to try to blame someone, but to find out how the situation came to be and what part everybody has in it and how to improve from there. My part is: Writing this comment to help the situation. I am also speaking up to support Sven. I believe that he was bit badly treated in the thread. No matter what he did to contribute to the situation, this list has people which are new to the problem. What could have been done better? If Sven's commit rights have been revoked and he got kicked out, it would be very good to give a reasonable explanation that people can be point people to. The usage of the phrase kicked by Sven, seems to indicate that there was no common position why he left the d-i team. c) I have the feeling of an incomplete picture. Sven, you could have pointed to the reasons why your commit rights have been revoked or that those reasons are missing right on the start. That would have helped me. But also others could help to to get more clear about this. What is the d-i position on not wanting Sven? Are there already explanations somebody could point me to? d) Thomas disregarded Sven's estimation about the diffculties of the d-i efforts and the port. I think this is a mistake on the technical side, Sven has experience and his estimations deserve a sound evaluation and a serious rebuttal. Of course he is not the only competent person, but this does not discredit his estimations. On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:21:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:20:09AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 27 April 2006 13:39, Sven Luther wrote: I revoked your commit rights immediately after your resignation from the team because I felt (and I still do) that things had deteriorated so much that the d-i team was better of without any involvement from you. Frans, this can be okay (without knowing what the probkems are), but .. Also, I did not want any interference in the work of (the) new powerpc porter(s). I fail to see how Sven giving a hand would be that bad (even without commit rights), at the worst case he would need to be ignored which seems worth the risk to me. The fact that you attempted to fix the cd building breakage without first consulting is proof that that was not unjustified. This might have been a documentable case where clear requirements of d-i commit rights (as I imagine them) were not met: * Consult the main person before commiting. What porters ? You mean Colin Watson ? Or is there someone else ? I assume it is clear that everybody need to follow rules in a team. Sven, you so far did not write that you would be willing to accept rules like this. Your response (quoted above) to Frans remark seems off the point to me in this respect and switching the topic to another problem. I am pointing this out as an example how I see that people in this thread fail to communicate with each other and create more missunderstandings. I explicitly do not blame Sven (or anyone else). Sven obviously reacted to part of the message that is more important to him: Who will do the work? This is a legitimate question... Again: I am just trying to point the mechanism. What do you want instead ? That i bugger Colin to fix the issue, while we all know he is busy ? That i send a patch to the BTS, then come begging to debian-boot that it be fixed ? This would cause much more mailing list traffic, and much more risk of annoying you, so sorry, but your removal of the commit rights was ill-thought. Sven, while I understand your demand of clear rules, I cannot follow your conclusion out of this. (Means: I can imagine other ways of doing things in general.) So, this is a first step, but i need more. I need : - the commit access being restored. I have not read plausible reasons why this would be necessary. If the goal is to have a good installer and ppc port, other ways of collaborating could be found. It would be
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Replying in private, as i have agreed to refrain from posting while the DPL mediation team searches a compromise. Anyone interested in my reply, please ask me and i will forward it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:10:32AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 15:02 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:18:40PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Prep has been relegated to an embedded platform that builds only in arch/ppc for now. It should still work there though. We might move it over to powerpc one day... You told me on irc that you broke prep on arch/ppc, did you fix it again ? Paulus did afaik Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? So, the basic plan is to have a -prep ARCH=ppc flavour in addition of the -powerpc one. I will add this over this WE. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. So, the basic plan is to have a -prep ARCH=ppc flavour in addition of the -powerpc one. I will add this over this WE. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 08:41 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. I think there is Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. I don't how many are still in use and running Linux. Regards, Gabriel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. I don't how many are still in use and running Linux. I guess i will only do a UP flavour, and wait until someone asks for a SMP version before seeing if it is worth it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? -Olof -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:52:49AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:12:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:41:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:38:07PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Hey, cool. so ARCH=ppc will work both for apus and prep, and the rest should go with ARCH=powerpc. This is the case both for 2.6.16 and the upcoming 2.6.17, right ? I don't remember when he fixed it precisely but I think 2.6.16 got it yes. Do you know if there are SMP PReP machines around ? I think i will do only a UP -prep flavour. There were at least dual 604 PreP boards. The IBM 7043-240 is a dual-cpu system, I think it's PReP? Thanks for the info. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:18:40PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Prep has been relegated to an embedded platform that builds only in arch/ppc for now. It should still work there though. We might move it over to powerpc one day... You told me on irc that you broke prep on arch/ppc, did you fix it again ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 15:02 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:18:40PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Prep has been relegated to an embedded platform that builds only in arch/ppc for now. It should still work there though. We might move it over to powerpc one day... You told me on irc that you broke prep on arch/ppc, did you fix it again ? Paulus did afaik Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Prep has been relegated to an embedded platform that builds only in arch/ppc for now. It should still work there though. We might move it over to powerpc one day... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. Perhaps my experience has been different, but I have noticed that when I don't have commit privileges to a particular repo or part of the project that submitting a patch to the responsible individual(s) usually yields results. Though, I am not (yet) a DD, which may explain why am accustomed to working without the ability to directly commit. I am not trying to make a personal attack here. I am simply saying that I don't have write access is a relatively lame excuse. If everyone went by that mantra, there would be no DD-wannabees and the project would likely not have as many people going through the process of becoming DDs. Caveats: IANAL, YMMV, IMHPTPCOOFMRE (I may have pulled the preceding completely out of my rear end) -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. I offer myself to commit the things that you do to fix this problems. So this isn't a problem if you wanna help us to have it done for beta3 as you did previously. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, FYI I expect to be able to get this issue sorted out today/tomorrow. I was somewhat behind on debian-boot@ mail and hadn't realised it was a problem until aj drew my attention to it. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 07:59:17AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. Perhaps my experience has been different, but I have noticed that when I don't have commit privileges to a particular repo or part of the project that submitting a patch to the responsible individual(s) usually yields results. Though, I am not (yet) a DD, which may explain why am accustomed to working without the ability to directly commit. This only works if there is someone responsible enough and with time to do the job on the other side. This is not the case, and it is has been my experience in the past month, that if i did not fix these issues myself, nobody would care. I am not trying to make a personal attack here. I am simply saying that I don't have write access is a relatively lame excuse. If everyone No, i am saying write access was taken away from me without informing me or a valid reason. I am saying that they claimed here they had replacement powerpc porters when they kicked me, and now we see this was a blatant lie, and the powerpc port ended up in dissaray. went by that mantra, there would be no DD-wannabees and the project would likely not have as many people going through the process of becoming DDs. I have been a DD since longer than a big part of the d-i team, i have been working on powerpc support for d-i since around 3 years now. I know damn well what the powerpc d-i port would look like if i had not been there to do the job, and since they kicked me out, i damn well know what the future yields. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:15:18AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. I offer myself to commit the things that you do to fix this problems. So this isn't a problem if you wanna help us to have it done for beta3 as you did previously. No, i will not go this way. If the social problem doesn't solve itself in the near future, i am much more proposing to host a forked version of the d-i and some key packages, and fix stuff there. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:34:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, FYI I expect to be able to get this issue sorted out today/tomorrow. I was somewhat behind on debian-boot@ mail and hadn't realised it was a problem until aj drew my attention to it. The last successfull build was on april 1, some 26 days ago or so. Do you think that you will have the time and ressource to do a good job of powerpc maintainership on d-i in the future ? If so, then i take back my claim that debian/powerpc can be mostly considered as dead as far as d-i is concerned. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:17:26PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:34:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, FYI I expect to be able to get this issue sorted out today/tomorrow. I was somewhat behind on debian-boot@ mail and hadn't realised it was a problem until aj drew my attention to it. The last successfull build was on april 1, some 26 days ago or so. Yeah, I know. That should be fixed with (a) me biting the bullet and updating my build machine over the modular X hill and (b) the d-i and debian-cd changes I committed over the last hour or two. I hadn't been paying attention to CD build logs; I'll know to do so in the future. (Until mkvmlinuz figures out how to deal with prep on = 2.6.16, of course, the powerpc CDs won't have prep support.) Do you think that you will have the time and ressource to do a good job of powerpc maintainership on d-i in the future ? I should think so. My main problem of late has been an excess of broken CD drives on machines I care about (explaining why I wasn't paying attention to the CD builds), but I need to sort that out soon anyway. Obviously without having all the subarchitectures myself I can't do it entirely myself, and I welcome being pointed at bug reports I haven't noticed especially from users of those subarchitectures; but assuming continued kernel support I should be able to keep the existing set more or less going. That's not to say, of course, that fresh porting blood wouldn't be a good thing. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:16:15PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:17:26PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:34:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, FYI I expect to be able to get this issue sorted out today/tomorrow. I was somewhat behind on debian-boot@ mail and hadn't realised it was a problem until aj drew my attention to it. The last successfull build was on april 1, some 26 days ago or so. Yeah, I know. That should be fixed with (a) me biting the bullet and updating my build machine over the modular X hill and (b) the d-i and Maybe not kicking maintainers out would have helped too. debian-cd changes I committed over the last hour or two. I hadn't been paying attention to CD build logs; I'll know to do so in the future. Cool. Still, i feel that this is the kind of responsabilities the d-i team leader has to take over, and keep the oversight on the situation on all arches, not just his pet ones. (Until mkvmlinuz figures out how to deal with prep on = 2.6.16, of course, the powerpc CDs won't have prep support.) Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Do you think that you will have the time and ressource to do a good job of powerpc maintainership on d-i in the future ? I should think so. My main problem of late has been an excess of broken CD drives on machines I care about (explaining why I wasn't paying attention to the CD builds), but I need to sort that out soon anyway. This kind of thing should be automated, i believe that back in the days, joeyh had a some tool to check for those, this could easily enough be used as a way to aler the right people of failures of this kind. Obviously without having all the subarchitectures myself I can't do it entirely myself, and I welcome being pointed at bug reports I haven't noticed especially from users of those subarchitectures; but assuming continued kernel support I should be able to keep the existing set more or less going. Yeah, the problem with debian/powerpc, is that most users will mostly give up or try to hack a problem their own way (or ping me on irc or send me personal mails), than go through the proper channels, so there is need for a more pro-active kind of powerpc maintainership here. That's not to say, of course, that fresh porting blood wouldn't be a good thing. Well, we should start by not kicking out people, would make this less of a problem :/ BTW, what is your position on the yaboot orphaning ? You sound like the more likely candidate to take that one over, altough i guess this means only one more thing to worry for your ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. I don't understand how kicking you out demonstrates that the port isn't maintained. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, i will not go this way. If the social problem doesn't solve itself in the near future, i am much more proposing to host a forked version of the d-i and some key packages, and fix stuff there. So you are now declaring that you will not submit the patches? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Dear guys, why don't you take a little break, leave the console and try something relaxing (a beer | dinner | walk | sex | ... everything you like)? In one year I installed every flavour of debian powerpc on a really bastard powerbook G4 12 many many times, sometimes because the installer was broken; however, I think that it's the best system for this hardware, and maybe - I have only the PB with the powerpc - for other too. So I would like to thank, all you developers mantainers, and invite all the others to keep calm, with a copy of an older netinstaller. thanks again for your work leo This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:33:51PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The debian installer netinst and businesscard images are now broken since almost a month, and since the d-i team kicked me out as powerpc maintainer, and removed my d-i commit rights, there is no way for me to help fix this, and this clearly demostrates that the d-i powerpc port is not maintained anymore. I don't understand how kicking you out demonstrates that the port isn't maintained. Well, who is working on the powerpc d-i port ? Only Colin Watson, but his duties in ubuntu don't leave him enough time to do the work properly, and it was always me in the past who ended up doing the work nobody else cared about. Since they remove me, and given the difficulties the d-i project has to find porters, i don't think they will be able to solve this issue in a timely fashion for the etch release. Actually, you can consider the fact of the rather abandonement of the d-i project, and of joeyh regularly blaming the lazyness of the porters, as a sign that something is really roten in d-i even without the issues about me. Appart from the translators, naturally, but who is there really left doing real d-i job in the last year, hardly a handful of persons or so. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, who is working on the powerpc d-i port ? Only Colin Watson, but his duties in ubuntu don't leave him enough time to do the work properly, and it was always me in the past who ended up doing the work nobody else cared about. I don't understand how removing your write access to the repository prevents you from continuing to do the work. Since they remove me, and given the difficulties the d-i project has to find porters, i don't think they will be able to solve this issue in a timely fashion for the etch release. Surely if they fail to do so, it should be dropped. But saying they will be helpless without me, so they will fail, so drop them now doesn't make much sense. If you no longer wish to help with debian ppc, that's sad, but I don't understand why that means that nobody else could ever be found. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:59:27PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, who is working on the powerpc d-i port ? Only Colin Watson, but his duties in ubuntu don't leave him enough time to do the work properly, and it was always me in the past who ended up doing the work nobody else cared about. I don't understand how removing your write access to the repository prevents you from continuing to do the work. Well, if it was isolated maybe, but having constant bashing and patronizing of frans over my every comment, and then being told don't bother anyway your stuff will nto be included, and then this in addition, it is a bit much. Not caunting the other very crass personal attacks they made on me while i was in personal distress. Since they remove me, and given the difficulties the d-i project has to find porters, i don't think they will be able to solve this issue in a timely fashion for the etch release. Surely if they fail to do so, it should be dropped. But saying they will be helpless without me, so they will fail, so drop them now No, i am raising an alarm earlier, so people who care about powerpc will have time to act, and will not stay believing all is fine, and end with a mess 8 month from now or such. doesn't make much sense. If you no longer wish to help with debian ppc, that's sad, but I don't understand why that means that nobody else could ever be found. No, i want to help, i also want for the port to do well and work. When frans first anounced that they had found another porter, and that everything would be fine without me, i was as helpfull as i could, and now 4 weeks afterward, i see the mess that resulted. I want that either they admit their failure to the world at large, take their responsabilities seriously and get the powerpc port going, or admit my competence and accept my help. There is no middle ground, and if neither of these three choices are made, ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, i am raising an alarm earlier, so people who care about powerpc will have time to act, and will not stay believing all is fine, and end with a mess 8 month from now or such. Hrm, perhaps I misunderstood your subject line. I understood it not to be an alarm, but rather, a declaration that you think powerpc should be removed from the etch release now. I hope you can see how I came to such a misunderstanding. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:11:16PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, i am raising an alarm earlier, so people who care about powerpc will have time to act, and will not stay believing all is fine, and end with a mess 8 month from now or such. Hrm, perhaps I misunderstood your subject line. I understood it not to be an alarm, but rather, a declaration that you think powerpc should be removed from the etch release now. I hope you can see how I came to such a misunderstanding. It should be removed from the actual etch release candidate until the situation improves. The etch release candidate guidelines include a working and well supported d-i port, and this criteria is not fullfilled, so powerpc should be dropped from potential etch release until it is solved. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It should be removed from the actual etch release candidate until the situation improves. The etch release candidate guidelines include a working and well supported d-i port, and this criteria is not fullfilled, so powerpc should be dropped from potential etch release until it is solved. Surely working d-i port doesn't mean that we should drop release candidates every time a bug appears. Whether it's well-supported depends on the willingness of people to help support it. It sounds as if you are not willing to help, which is sad, but is hardly grounds for declaring that nobody will do the work. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're that essential. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:25:59PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It should be removed from the actual etch release candidate until the situation improves. The etch release candidate guidelines include a working and well supported d-i port, and this criteria is not fullfilled, so powerpc should be dropped from potential etch release until it is solved. Surely working d-i port doesn't mean that we should drop release candidates every time a bug appears. This is no bug, this is a serious problem in the ressources needed to get the port working in a timely fashion for the etch release. Basically, there is no real maintainer anymore, and the d-i team doesn't care. Whether it's well-supported depends on the willingness of people to help support it. It sounds as if you are not willing to help, which is sad, but is hardly grounds for declaring that nobody will do the work. No, i was kicked out of the d-i project. That is sad. Even so, i was willing to help, and discovered this not because they told it to me, but because i was blocked from helping. They had to do it meakly in my back. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're that essential. Well, i draw a few years of experience of powerpc porter for d-i behind me now, and given the abysmal situation of d-i contributors, who have melted since the sarge release like an iceberg in the carribean, that there is a serious problem here. I perfectly know what i had to do this past time, and that there is no real replacement with enough time. I was kicked out, and within the week the d-i powerpc isos broke and stayed broken until now. What more proof do you want ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, i was kicked out of the d-i project. That is sad. Even so, i was willing to help, and discovered this not because they told it to me, but because i was blocked from helping. They had to do it meakly in my back. What I heard you say was that you were not willing to send in patches or help unless you had write access to the repository. Did I misunderstand? I perfectly know what i had to do this past time, and that there is no real replacement with enough time. I was kicked out, and within the week the d-i powerpc isos broke and stayed broken until now. What more proof do you want ? What I'm saying is that no amout of proof that they will not be able to meet the targets is relevant. What's relevant is actual failure to do so, not your (or anyone else's) prognostications. So, if you want to help the situation, why not continue to submit patches and volunteer to help anyone else who wants to? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:38:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, i was kicked out of the d-i project. That is sad. Even so, i was willing to help, and discovered this not because they told it to me, but because i was blocked from helping. They had to do it meakly in my back. What I heard you say was that you were not willing to send in patches I am not willing to send in patches now. I was kicked out of d-i a month ago. or help unless you had write access to the repository. Did I misunderstand? No. i am not willing to contribute patches while being threated like a subhuman by the d-i team. I don't even care of what they want or do, i just want to be able to fix things. I perfectly know what i had to do this past time, and that there is no real replacement with enough time. I was kicked out, and within the week the d-i powerpc isos broke and stayed broken until now. What more proof do you want ? What I'm saying is that no amout of proof that they will not be able to meet the targets is relevant. What's relevant is actual failure to do so, not your (or anyone else's) prognostications. the d-i isos are broken, and had i not been there, they will probably have been broken for another couple of month. So, if you want to help the situation, why not continue to submit patches and volunteer to help anyone else who wants to? So i get insulted and hurt again in a few month from now, no thanks. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not willing to send in patches now. I was kicked out of d-i a month ago. Gotcha. I don't understand why, however. I lack write access to all kinds of things, but I still send in patches. It sounds like you care about powerpc support, so I find it hard to understand why you won't send in patches. I don't even care of what they want or do, i just want to be able to fix things. So send in patches; how does whatever they are doing to you prevent you from fixing things? (Or is it that you want to have write access?) I've seen you treat people pretty badly in the past, so I guess that I tend to discount the seriousness of your complaint when you say that they treat you as a subhuman; but that's neither here nor there. I'm not so much asking *why* you don't want to submit patches, as much as confirming that you don't want to. Why you don't want to is your business, it doesn't really matter what the reason is. The question is, if you aren't willing to help now (for whatever reason) what is the right response from the rest of the project. It seems to me that if you don't want to help anymore, that's sad, and we should work to find someone else who will. If that fails, and there is insufficient support for the port then, when the time comes, it should be dropped. But we don't need to drop it now just because you think it won't meet the target later. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:02:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not willing to send in patches now. I was kicked out of d-i a month ago. Gotcha. I don't understand why, however. I lack write access to all kinds of things, but I still send in patches. It sounds like you care about powerpc support, so I find it hard to understand why you won't send in patches. I have seen Frans claim various times about patches and changes i was proposing that it will never be applied anyway because i proposed it, and he didn't thrust me. Do you really thing that in the light of this me sending in patches just to have them rote in the BTS is valable ? world+dog has svn access to the d-i repo, why then did they remove me from it ? I don't even care of what they want or do, i just want to be able to fix things. So send in patches; how does whatever they are doing to you prevent you from fixing things? (Or is it that you want to have write access?) No, i want them stopping to hurt me on every occasion that arises. I've seen you treat people pretty badly in the past, so I guess that I tend to discount the seriousness of your complaint when you say that they treat you as a subhuman; but that's neither here nor there. Now, i have the serious feeling of being threated as such in this case. I am just there to slave and send in patches, but to be slapped and put into place if i don't agree with the powers that be. I'm not so much asking *why* you don't want to submit patches, as much as confirming that you don't want to. Why you don't want to is your business, it doesn't really matter what the reason is. Whatever. The question is, if you aren't willing to help now (for whatever reason) what is the right response from the rest of the project. It seems to me that if you don't want to help anymore, that's sad, and we should work to find someone else who will. Indeed, and when Frans searched for others to help a month ago, i provided a helpful list of all the issues i was aware of, and wished them luck. If that fails, and there is insufficient support for the port then, when the time comes, it should be dropped. But we don't need to drop it now just because you think it won't meet the target later. We need to drop it as 'release candidate', not decide it can never be released, in order to create an electrochoc, and either get new blood in willing to do the work, or stop cutting our right arm and leaving it bleeding on the road side. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:38:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: What I'm saying is that no amout of proof that they will not be able to meet the targets is relevant. What's relevant is actual failure to do so, not your (or anyone else's) prognostications. the d-i isos are broken, and had i not been there, they will probably have been broken for another couple of month. As it happens, Frans had already noticed the problem and pinged me about it a few days ago, and I was just emerging from under a different pile of work so I had some time to look at it anyway. Failures in the d-i build logs don't go unnoticed, although I agree that this one took longer to fix than it should have done. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:15:10AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:38:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: What I'm saying is that no amout of proof that they will not be able to meet the targets is relevant. What's relevant is actual failure to do so, not your (or anyone else's) prognostications. the d-i isos are broken, and had i not been there, they will probably have been broken for another couple of month. As it happens, Frans had already noticed the problem and pinged me about it a few days ago, and I was just emerging from under a different pile of work so I had some time to look at it anyway. Failures in the d-i build logs don't go unnoticed, although I agree that this one took longer to fix than it should have done. But nobody cared to inform the powerpc users, who where trying to use the broken images on machines the april 1 build could not work. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Hi all Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:17:26PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: That's not to say, of course, that fresh porting blood wouldn't be a good thing. Why must it be fresh blood? Isn't blood enough? I don't see the point revoking rights of a developer, who helped and seems willing to help also in the future. The Social Contract mentions We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. There are Users in PPC who have needs, so there must be a way to solve the social disharmony between Sven Luther and the d-i team. So cool down your blood and it keeps fresh... :-) (some pathetic words for Debian). Peace! Adrian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:07:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:16:15PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: debian-cd changes I committed over the last hour or two. I hadn't been paying attention to CD build logs; I'll know to do so in the future. Cool. Still, i feel that this is the kind of responsabilities the d-i team leader has to take over, and keep the oversight on the situation on all arches, not just his pet ones. Frans did tell me about it a little while ago, actually; I'd had it in my queue but not dealt with it yet. (Until mkvmlinuz figures out how to deal with prep on = 2.6.16, of course, the powerpc CDs won't have prep support.) Its not a mkvmlinuz problem, the problem is in the kernel itself, and will probably be fixed for 2.6.17. I am watching this, and will try to do a backport if something promising comes on. Not sure i will have the time to fix it myself though. Ah, OK; thanks for the information. Do you think that you will have the time and ressource to do a good job of powerpc maintainership on d-i in the future ? I should think so. My main problem of late has been an excess of broken CD drives on machines I care about (explaining why I wasn't paying attention to the CD builds), but I need to sort that out soon anyway. This kind of thing should be automated, i believe that back in the days, joeyh had a some tool to check for those, this could easily enough be used as a way to aler the right people of failures of this kind. Watching http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/build-logs.html on a daily-ish basis is easy enough now that it's occurred to me to check the CD build logs section as well (d'oh). BTW, what is your position on the yaboot orphaning ? You sound like the more likely candidate to take that one over, altough i guess this means only one more thing to worry for your ? I've certainly thought about it, and may well take it on over the next few weeks if nobody else does. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:24:56AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:15:10AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: the d-i isos are broken, and had i not been there, they will probably have been broken for another couple of month. As it happens, Frans had already noticed the problem and pinged me about it a few days ago, and I was just emerging from under a different pile of work so I had some time to look at it anyway. Failures in the d-i build logs don't go unnoticed, although I agree that this one took longer to fix than it should have done. But nobody cared to inform the powerpc users, who where trying to use the broken images on machines the april 1 build could not work. Sure, communication could have been better. I'll try to improve on that in future. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have seen Frans claim various times about patches and changes i was proposing that it will never be applied anyway because i proposed it, and he didn't thrust me. Do you really thing that in the light of this me sending in patches just to have them rote in the BTS is valable ? Don't know; I haven't seen what Frans said, so I can't comment on it. I'm not sure how, if you have the patches, it does any harm to send them in. world+dog has svn access to the d-i repo, why then did they remove me from it ? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. How does whether you have write access matter? Now, i have the serious feeling of being threated as such in this case. I am just there to slave and send in patches, but to be slapped and put into place if i don't agree with the powers that be. I can't comment on things I haven't read; if you were mistreated, that's bad, but I'm not prepared to simply take your word for it. We need to drop it as 'release candidate', not decide it can never be released, in order to create an electrochoc, and either get new blood in willing to do the work, or stop cutting our right arm and leaving it bleeding on the road side. It seems to me as if you are the one doing the cutting... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But nobody cared to inform the powerpc users, who where trying to use the broken images on machines the april 1 build could not work. I'm a powerpc user, and I wasn't trying to use the broken images. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have seen Frans claim various times about patches and changes i was proposing that it will never be applied anyway because i proposed it, and he didn't thrust me. Do you really thing that in the light of this me sending in patches just to have them rote in the BTS is valable ? Don't know; I haven't seen what Frans said, so I can't comment on it. It is publicly archived in debian-boot, go look for it. I'm not sure how, if you have the patches, it does any harm to send them in. I don't have patches yet. I need to invest time and effort to create them, just so they can be ignored ? Would you do this in those conditions ? world+dog has svn access to the d-i repo, why then did they remove me from it ? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant. How does whether you have write access matter? The question is : Did frans have a ethic reason to remove my commit access, or did he do it only out of spit to get ride of me ? I have seen many argue that since i resigned from being 'the d-i powerpc porter' it was ok for him to remove those commit rights, but i would like to ask any reader, if deep within themselves they think it is ethic, and serves the debian project, and was not done just to hurt me ? Now, i have the serious feeling of being threated as such in this case. I am just there to slave and send in patches, but to be slapped and put into place if i don't agree with the powers that be. I can't comment on things I haven't read; if you were mistreated, that's bad, but I'm not prepared to simply take your word for it. So, go read the archives, it is all open and public (since for good or bad, i am addicted to the 'g' letter in mutt :). We need to drop it as 'release candidate', not decide it can never be released, in order to create an electrochoc, and either get new blood in willing to do the work, or stop cutting our right arm and leaving it bleeding on the road side. It seems to me as if you are the one doing the cutting... Nope, frans did, and others with him. They know who they are. Anyone reading the mailing list archive with care will know too. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:48:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But nobody cared to inform the powerpc users, who where trying to use the broken images on machines the april 1 build could not work. I'm a powerpc user, and I wasn't trying to use the broken images. So, nobody did ? What astounding logic :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is : Did frans have a ethic reason to remove my commit access, or did he do it only out of spit to get ride of me ? I have seen many argue that since i resigned from being 'the d-i powerpc porter' it was ok for him to remove those commit rights, but i would like to ask any reader, if deep within themselves they think it is ethic, and serves the debian project, and was not done just to hurt me ? I don't know. Let's ask Frans. Since you did resign, it doesn't seem like you get to declare what rights you have. So, go read the archives, it is all open and public (since for good or bad, i am addicted to the 'g' letter in mutt :). No. *You* brought this up, *you* go do the grepping to find what message you are talking about. How can *I* tell which messages *you* are upset about? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The powerpc port should be removed from etch release candidates ...
Sven Luther wrote: I have seen Frans claim various times about patches and changes i was proposing that it will never be applied anyway because i proposed it, and he didn't thrust me. Do you really thing that in the light of this me sending in patches just to have them rote in the BTS is valable ? world+dog has svn access to the d-i repo, why then did they remove me from it ? Does somebody see a connection between your last question and the first question of the paragraph quoted? Regards, Joey -- GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
