Michael Banck a écrit :
It is clear that Debian will have to change in order to face the issues
it is confronted with, and I think the Vancouver proposal is a good
starting point. It might need some fine-tuning, but I believe everybody
is aware of that by now, so just screaming at the original pro
Frank Küster a écrit :
There is one problem: These porters would need a debian.org machine to
host their archive, and this puts again some workload on the ftpmasters
and system admins. From the Vancouver proposal it seemed to me that
it was not planned to provide such ressources.
If there is more
Bill Allombert a écrit :
Hello Debian developers,
It had come several times that one major problem is the load of
wanna-build connection on newraff, and the time and memory it take
to run the testing scripts.
Debian certainly has enough goodwill to get a donation of a couple of
really fast box wi
Frank Küster a écrit :
I think Sven was talking about *his* proposal for an alternative
handling of SCC architectures, giving them a chance to be released.
Oops sorry. I am not really against, but we should before try to address
the real problems.
What about partial mirroring to address space pro
Sven Luther a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Sven Luther a écrit :
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the rest o
Sven Luther a écrit :
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch
we support is going pretty well. On the other hand s390 (which is not a
slow ar
Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable,
especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why
Robert Lemmen a écrit :
i feel very,very bad about this, but perhaps it's what is needed. i have two
*big* concerns though:
- maintainers will start to downgrade or ignore bugs that are
arch-specififc if that arch is not in "the" archive. we should have at
least the requirement that a package m
Steve Langasek a écrit :
The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not sustainable to
continue making coordinated releases for as many architectures as sarge
9 matches
Mail list logo
