I can happily provide two Sun SS20's , one or two U1's and an Acorn RiscPC
to help build ARM and Sparc. I'd happily give them a basic install, provide
broadband
access to them and hand over control to the buildd team.
--
Paul
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gff2aplot
Version : 2.0
Upstream Author : Josep Francesc ABRIL FERRANDO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://genome.imim.es/software/gfftools/GFF2APLOT.html
* License
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for maintainers
> > not
> > doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
> In th
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:55:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If you ask me I would immediately subscribe to all of my packages and
> I would not consider it as noise if any patch Ububtu is doing would be
> sended automatically as wishlist bug to the Debian BTS.
If you browse through the patch
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:55:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >for use elsewhere. In the future, we intend to offer a subscription
> >mechanism for interested parties to receive asynchronous notification of
> >new
> >patches and other activity, b
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
for use elsewhere. In the future, we intend to offer a subscription
mechanism for interested parties to receive asynchronous notification of new
patches and other activity, but until that time, we are taking a
If you ask me I would immediately subscribe t
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:02:32AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Then I'm having trouble parsing what you are saying, too. Like
> Thomas, the only sense I can make of your description is that
> you are are describing an algorithm that goes roughly like
>
> 0 Bug is discovered
> 1 Patch
Scripsit Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In
>> > cases where we can be certain that this is welcome (i.e., a bu
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
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, o
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:08:14AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > For sparc, a second buildd was brought on-line on auric this year because
> > (IIRC) vore was not keeping up with the upload volume at the time; this
> > required effort on DSA's part to clear enough disk space to be able to run a
> >
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 w
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 1
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Quanah,
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:39:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> > Is there a way to enforce this without editing DB_CONFIG? I'd rather set
>> > an environment variable or something like that. Writing that into
>> > DB_CONFIG in
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> > These seem like excellent fodder for a FAQ/wiki, if there isn't one
> > already (a quick scan around Ubuntu's official and wiki FAQs didn't turn
> > up anything). Perhaps "How Ubuntu
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> These seem like excellent fodder for a FAQ/wiki, if there isn't one
> already (a quick scan around Ubuntu's official and wiki FAQs didn't turn
> up anything). Perhaps "How Ubuntu relates to Debian", or "How Ubuntu
> changes find the
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:32:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
>> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
>> publish all of our patches rela
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> - out-of-date packaging; for XFree86 4.3 and Xorg, the package should
> build-depend on libxinerama-dev and build-conflict (if there were such
> a thing) with xlibs-static-pic
There is such a thing: Build-Conflicts.
Hamish
--
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included, the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal is a
'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal was 'excluding'.
4) each non-tier1 arches will have its own testing infra
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
> publish all of our patches relative to Debian on a regular basis, and make
> an honest effort to sort
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
> publish all of our patches relative to Debian on a regular basis, and make
> an honest effort to sort
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:04:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So can you explain what I'm misunderstanding? What sort of patches
> are we talking about, and what is the publishing you're talking about?
The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
website, an
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In cases
> > > where
> > > we can be certain that this is welcome
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In cases where
> > we can be certain that this is welcome (i.e., a bug is open in debbugs), the
> > patch is pushed, o
Joerg Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The number of packages
>Debian never stopped growing, and there are packages which are
>unmaintained but they are still in the archive.
>Hey, if noone is willing to maintain a package, wait a grace period
>(30 days) and remove it fr
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:39:21PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> Sorry Kyle, I owe you an apology and $DRINK on my tab.
>
And I owe you an apology. As I later realized, and a few folks pointed
out, I was way beyond the line in my reply.
Sorry for being so harsh.
Regards,
Kyle M.
> You
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:28:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > One suggestion: if any Ubuntu patches were CC'd to the Debian
> > maintainer, or filed in the BTS, they would get applied quicker. I've
> > now put your gimp-print changes back into my
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is unacceptable. It would for example allow archs to be refused
> because their names starts with an 'A'.
Personally, I'd prefer to delegate that sort of decision to the
technical committee rather than have the release team have a veto. Ev
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
> I don't understand this. What is the problem w
* 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 unsta
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>>* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>>
>>>
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requir
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:28:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> One suggestion: if any Ubuntu patches were CC'd to the Debian
> maintainer, or filed in the BTS, they would get applied quicker. I've
> now put your gimp-print changes back into my packages, but I would
> have been happy to do this la
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd
> False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one
> buildd host, but with the exception of
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 an
Hi,
reading larger parts of the recent threads triggered by the
'Vancouver proposal' brought me to write this mail.
Over the last two years testing became more and more a second
(almost) stable distribution instead of being a preparation area for the
next release. Now there is even security sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many Debian developers have been asking for a simple way to see the
> current difference between their package and the equivalent in Ubuntu,
> if any.
>
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
That
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
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 Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> > reasoning behin
> If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot.
>
> Throwing out this requir
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:02:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Uh. Most porting bugs that require attention fall in one of the
> following areas:
> * Toolchain problems (Internal Compiler Errors, mostly)
> * Mistakes made by the packager. Quite easy to fix, usually.
> * Inc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Matthew,
> I didn't realise how emotionally attached I was until I came to write
> this mail. I really wish things could have worked out better.
Although I am quite puzzled by the way you treated Sven a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> > identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> > perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
>
* Riku Voipio
| Incidentally the first problem should be solvable with the multiarch
| proposal, and the toolchains need to be polished anyway.
The multiarch proposals out there deal with how to run binaries for
multiple architectures, not how to cross-build. That's one of the
roads which would
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
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
an arch
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> > isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> > through a release cycle
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which can and
> > shou
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> > e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> > an arch is too long ig
Hi Quanah,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:39:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > Is there a way to enforce this without editing DB_CONFIG? I'd rather set
> > an environment variable or something like that. Writing that into
> > DB_CONFIG in the maintainer scripts always poses the risk that it'
> That has happened, but that are not the really bad problems with the
> toolchain. The really bad problems is if e.g. a class of packages starts
> to fail to build from source. Or some new required kernel version forces
> all to upgrade some autoconf-scripts.
>
Both problems are easy to solve co
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 22:30]:
> Because it should not be reason to throw out an entire architecture. Ie.
> if the package can not be compiled on $arch and the toolchain can not be
> fixed in time, then release $arch without the package instead of
> throwing out the w
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Either someone
> cares enough to write (or adapt) the management tools and it gets included,
> or they don't and it doesn't because nobody in their right mind would
> deploy it in any widespread fashion.
But the latter is already true, and irrelevant.
-
>
Because it should not be reason to throw out an entire architecture. Ie.
if the package can not be compiled on $arch and the toolchain can not be
fixed in time, then release $arch without the package instead of
throwing out the whole arch.
Cheers,
Peter (p2).
signature.asc
Description: Digi
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> through a release cycle or once it becomes hard to obtain new hardware.
>
What prob
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:23:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not acceptable, and probably not the right reason for this.
> > Until
> > evidence proves otherwise, it is just because they don't care to read those
> > emails, and that th
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 16:55]:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 15:05]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Well, the toolchain is perhaps not th
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:22:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
> > wrong network.
>
> Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally tal
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
architecture alive? What problem are you tryi
Ok. I've written this based on the original d-d-a posting from Steve,
and from information cribbed from various other posts. The idea is to
focus consideration on the problems that the release team view as
needing to be solved, rather than just criticising the conclusions
reached.
To start with, h
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd
False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one
buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had)
more than one buildd host under our res
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, that is not acceptable, and probably not the right reason for this. Until
> evidence proves otherwise, it is just because they don't care to read those
> emails, and that that email address is simply forwarded to /dev/null.
This assertion isn't justifi
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - at least two buildd administrators
>
> > This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard
> A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
> a class of problems that /cannot/ be identified by just building on the
> big N
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".
O
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:40:11PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I am truly sorry for loosing you. You have done a good job helping
> > Debian progress the state of free software, and it is sad that you
> > decide to throw in the towel because of hard language from a fellow
> > Debian volunt
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:28:44PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sven Luther]
> > No, he is not, as far as i am concerned, unless he presents his
> > apologies first.
>
> For what? Commenting on your wast amount of email posted the last few
> days, and his suggestion that the amount of ema
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:46:25AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:42PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > That helps a lot, thanks Scott! What about offering a way to subscribe
> > to packages, so you'll get informed by mail if a package in Ubuntu is
> > changed, may
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 Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:34:00PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> > who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
>
>
> I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
> sad. Seein
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
> shou
> I am truly sorry for loosing you. You have done a good job helping
> Debian progress the state of free software, and it is sad that you
> decide to throw in the towel because of hard language from a fellow
> Debian volunteer. :(
I personnally can't stop thinking that Sven can reconsider his to
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
[Sven Luther]
> No, he is not, as far as i am concerned, unless he presents his
> apologies first.
For what? Commenting on your wast amount of email posted the last few
days, and his suggestion that the amount of email could make the
ftpmasters delete mails by mistake? I can not really believe t
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:10:12PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 17:05]:
> > I'm not going to volunteer for them as I intend to leave Debian
> > shortly after sarge releases.
>
> Why do you intend to leave Debian?
The Vancouver meeting summary upset me
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 ano
> I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
sad. Seeing Sven considering to resign is sad news for me.
I won't play the "others star
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 becaus
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> in later private emails.
This was a misunderstanding on my part, due to the fact that I
received the replies from Sven before I received the replies from
Matthew. The fact that the replies were done on public lists and not
in private email do not change how I react to thei
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 07:39:06PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:14:50PM +0100]:
> > It won't work that well for slower architectures, for the very simple
> > reason that compiling everything would take a long time.
> >
> > m68k (as the admittedly extre
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 bei
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> which i am searching a co-maintainer since > 6 month, and take over the
> powerpc k
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:22:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
> > wrong network.
>
> Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally tal
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > might be warranted and help Sarge. If there is such a case, it would
> > help if some
> For sparc, a second buildd was brought on-line on auric this year because
> (IIRC) vore was not keeping up with the upload volume at the time; this
> required effort on DSA's part to clear enough disk space to be able to run a
> buildd, until which time sparc was holding some RC bugfixes out of t
It's also not something that would totally destroy an architecture's
ability to release. Yes, it would be bad, but not the end of the world.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringent
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three
> chips, not all. And, by not making a hard requirement to compile the
> packages which will not be used, you are not holding the project back
> waiting for m68k's KDE
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sven Luther]
> > the problem is not the reject, is the no news in weeks and no
> > communication channel open. But again, i think and hope that this
> > will become better now.
>
> I agree. Complete silence and no feedback is
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
> issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
> amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
> useful t
* Matthew Palmer
| You'd also have to modify fernanda to check whether sys.stdout is a
| TTY, and not invoke less if it isn't, since at the moment it automatically
| pipes it's output through less. The colour codes might also be an issue, so
| fernanda may need extra help not to screw that up.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Maybe, if one would reply to all mails you send out, one wouldn't have
> time for ANY other Debian work. For example, you contributed 75 mails[1]
> within 24 hours to the Vancouver thread, consisting (excluding quoted
> text)
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
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:42PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> That helps a lot, thanks Scott! What about offering a way to subscribe
> to packages, so you'll get informed by mail if a package in Ubuntu is
> changed, maybe with an interdiff applied to that mail?
This isn't possible yet, bu
[Sven Luther]
> the problem is not the reject, is the no news in weeks and no
> communication channel open. But again, i think and hope that this
> will become better now.
I agree. Complete silence and no feedback is a real problem when it
happen, and only worse if it is an official debian role f
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:45:10PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> > wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> > which i am
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
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:42:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >And what do you say of aj denying there is a NEW problem on the debian-vote
> >threads ?
>
> I don't know what Steve says, but I say: Cite.
I don't care what you say, i am out of this anyway, there is no way i
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> > level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> > be whatever is needed, o
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
