Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
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
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
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:
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
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
about kicking it out of the architectures
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 01:05]:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
kind of FIFO order.
Er, no.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:20:20AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make
> myprog uninstallable in testing
>
> myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog
> uninstallable in testing.
>
> These two packages n
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It could. I decided that building four was excessive and having
> the act of installing libc6-i686 act to disable NPTL would be a little
> bit too strange.
Can you clue me in as to why the non-optimized libc6 package will work w
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:19:39PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to a
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to add
> linux-i686 too. I'm open for discussing that, but this discussion doesn't
> belong on the ITP bug.
And why is it only for 2.6 kernels? The processor specif
debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multi-level symlinks for default kernel
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:17:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:29:59 -0700, Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL P
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 07:48:33PM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> > I am wondering if anyone else is having the same problems I am with debian
> > keeping the vmlinuz symlink in /.
> >
> > I have several systems where /boot is the only filesystem accessable by the
> > boot loader because of softwar
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 07:48:33PM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> > I am wondering if anyone else is having the same problems I am with debian
> > keeping the vmlinuz symlink in /.
> >
> > I have several systems where /boot is the only filesystem accessable by the
> > boot loader because of softwar
Hi,
I am wondering if anyone else is having the same problems I am with debian
keeping the vmlinuz symlink in /.
I have several systems where /boot is the only filesystem accessable by the
boot loader because of software raid, or possibly lvm (haven't done this
yet, but thinking about it).
I reg
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:24:51PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> already fixed there. They should go into a security update repository, just
> as is done for stable, but not on security.debian.org.
Why not? It's already there.
#Security
deb http://security.debian.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:25:28PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:13:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >I'm not saying this is the only way that can happen; VNC could just
> >have been built first and never rebuilt against the new libc6. That
> >happens a lot. But t
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:29:48AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Michael Stone
>
> | On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> | > Yes, please use experemental more than it is now.
> |
> | Please never use experimental. I much prefer private apt
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:52:03PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 11:21:49PM +0200, PiotR wrote:
> > I think if you use a diode to connect the outputs you are limiting the
> > current flow in one way only. And why would you want to do this?
>
> Could this topic die or go
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 11:21:49PM +0200, PiotR wrote:
> Also I didn't understood why Alvin said "If one PS dies you are dead" I
> believe it will only fail to power those drives attached to them.
This would only work in a raid >=1 setup. You'd have one one drive on PS1,
and its mirror on PS2
md
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2001 06:48, Brandon High wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:50:26PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > > The IBM SCSI disk I have here has a jumper to delay spin up depending on
> > > SCSI ID so that an array of tho
20 matches
Mail list logo
