Re: Canonical and Debian

* Steve Langasek: >> how powerfull would a machine need to be to be of any help here? would >> an ultra 10 or a netra x1 be sufficient? > > The current buildd is an UltraSPARC II 300MHz with 512MB of RAM, and is not > sufficient. A Netra X1 typically feature a 400 MHz or 500 MHz UltraSPARC IIe CP

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:31PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:52:08PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>> accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when > > >>> they > > >>> do you the

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The second most significant area of concern, for me, is having people being > > proactive about dealing with per-architecture build failures. There's no > > particular reason that should be the buildd admins' or the release team'

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:54:08AM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the > > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter > > machine. > how

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

Quoting John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I am glad to have discussions take place at Debconf. In-person meetings > are a great way to brainstorm and reach some consensus. But I am wary > about decisions being reached there, or in IRC, or wherever only a > minority of Debian developers can par

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:05:17AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > By reading the Debconf5 participant list, I bet that much of these > will lead to heavy discussions at Debconf and you will have a lot of > opportunities to debate them. Just remind that one just cannot be as > rude in real life a

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:55:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:10:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a > > bug that results in an FTBFS on only one out of eleven platforms will > > not have any

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

> No, actually, at the time it was released it was presented as a fait > accompli. After it received a wide expression of distaste and disgust, That is your point of view and the way you read it. This is not the way I read it, so it's likely to be a matter of interpretation. > There has, to date

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:34:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Ok, we need more alpha machines then. If nothing else then at *least* > one for porters. Let's ask the debian-alpha list or debian-devel if > someone's got a spare alpha they don't mind parting with. I can > probably arrange hos

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > What do you mean with the "not-for-us" errors? I think what > you're refering too is that quinn-diff tells you to build > packages you really shouldn't. I filed a bug with a patch that > works for me: > http://bugs.debian.org/275835

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:11:46PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > > > >4) buildd software issues(pbuild,sbuild,wanna-build,etc) > > > > It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work > > > on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds. > > > Do you have some

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:23:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:08:23PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >[Josselin Mouette] > > >> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like > > >> rele

Re: Canonical and Debian

I demand that Benj. Mako Hill may or may not have written... > >> If you're going to complain about a cabal, please do try to get the facts >> straight: The DPL team consists of only one Canonical employee, who was >> even later, after the election, added (Benjamin "Mako" Hill) > And for the rec

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:10:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > * Julien BLACHE > > | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not. > > It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect. > The primary question, I t

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:55:39PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > both because the overhead of > training and coordinating with inexperienced (or, well, inept) coordinators > is often higher than just doing all the work yourself, In the short term this is true, but if the amount of work is incr

Re: Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:08:23PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >[Josselin Mouette] > >> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like > >> release. > > > >I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention o

Re: Canonical and Debian

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > Similarly, I'd expect Debian maintainers to care less about bugs which > | > only affects OpenBSD or Windows than those which affect Linux on i386. > | > | Would you mind explaining why this sentence is at all relevant in this > | context ? > > Bug

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:10:15AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > > It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work > > on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds. > > There was one in the m

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:11:46PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > Almost all of the dep-wait and many of the not-for-us errors could be > detected by the software. Yeah that would be useful. > wanna-build could probably be turned into a distributed process if it > can't be handled on a single box,

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Julien BLACHE > > | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not. > > It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect. The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a bug that results in an

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Julien BLACHE | Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > Similarly, I'd expect Debian maintainers to care less about bugs which | > only affects OpenBSD or Windows than those which affect Linux on i386. | | Would you mind explaining why this sentence is at all relevant in this | conte

Re: Arch-specific bugs [was: Canonical and Debian]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:11:05PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 07 juin 2005 à 02:12 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Oh, you'll also note that the traditional "slow" architectures (mips, > > mipsel, m68k, arm) aren't on this "problems" list. That's because a *lot* > > of effort ha

Re: Canonical and Debian

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Similarly, I'd expect Debian maintainers to care less about bugs which > only affects OpenBSD or Windows than those which affect Linux on i386. Would you mind explaining why this sentence is at all relevant in this context ? JB. -- Julien BLACHE -

Re: machines (was: Canonical and Debian)

> That gdb-problem is under investigation. > > > Well, at least we've got a porter machine, could that be turned into a > > buildd on relatively short notice if necessary? The gdb issue is > > something I certainly hope is being looked into or at least has been > > brought up to the LKML and debi

machines (was: Canonical and Debian)

* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050608 03:35]: > > - alpha: one buildd, able to keep up with current package volume; no spare > > buildd due to the principal candidate being inexplicably unbootable now > > (oh yeah, btw, the primary failed and was off-line for a day, a week > > before re

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Bill Allombert | On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | > * Julien BLACHE | > | > | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not. | > | > It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect. | | Why do you assume it is non-RC ? Because it doesn't trigger.

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:38:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Personally, I'd think it could probably help.. Though at the same time, > we should probably consider all the options which are made available in > case there's something that wouldn't require much additional effort to > maintain but

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:34:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Yes, I imagine the w-b infrastructure's lack of scalability was probably a > > factor in being choosy about what machines to accept as buildds, but there > > are certainly going to be other factors that scale linearly with the numb

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work > on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds. There was one in the make, but it got stuck for some unknown reasons (mostly because involved people

Re: buildd machines (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:13:10AM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = >writes: >> >- sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the >> > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:19:25AM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - hppa: one buildd, keeps up with package volume, but no backup buildd and > > gdb seems to kill its kernel (yay); one porter machine. > The "gdb kills sarti" issu

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:15PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Blars Blarson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I've been watching the sparc buildd queues for the past 9 months or > > so, filing most of the ftbfs bugs for sparc, and prodding the buildd > > maintainer when a package needs a simple b

Re: buildd machines (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:13:10AM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >- sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the > > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter > > machine. > Second faster

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:37:15PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Blars Blarson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I've been watching the sparc buildd queues for the past 9 months or > > so, filing most of the ftbfs bugs for sparc, and prodding the buildd > > maintainer when a package needs a simple b

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Robert Lemmen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the > > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter > > machine. > > how powerfull would a

Re: package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

* Blars Blarson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I've been watching the sparc buildd queues for the past 9 months or > so, filing most of the ftbfs bugs for sparc, and prodding the buildd > maintainer when a package needs a simple build requeue or the sbuild > chroot is broken. Great! What mechanisms

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neith

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Julien BLACHE > > | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not. > > It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect. Why do you assume it is non-RC ? In practice, a FTBFS on a plateform can be a grave runtime bug

package building problems (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

I've been watching the sparc buildd queues for the past 9 months or so, filing most of the ftbfs bugs for sparc, and prodding the buildd maintainer when a package needs a simple build requeue or the sbuild chroot is broken. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >IIUC, this is a

Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[Josselin Mouette] >> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like >> release. > >I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention of the >proposal from the group meeting in Vancover. The intent was not at

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Julien BLACHE | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not. It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect. Similarly, I'd expect Debian maintainers to care less about bugs which only affects OpenBSD or Windows than those which affect Linux on i386. -- Tollef Fog Heen

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Jun 07, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given our current architecture coverage, a bug on one architecture > often also exists on at least one other architecture; because it > doesn't manifest there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A bug is a bug, > whether it triggers or not. But a bu

Re: Canonical and Debian

Le mardi 07 juin 2005 à 02:12 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > But while everyone's fretting over > whether the w-b admins will allow m68k buildd #15 to connect, we have the > following architecture problems right now, in no particular order: > > - alpha: one buildd, able to keep up with current

Re: Ports helping in World Domination? (was: Re: Canonical and Debian)

On 6/6/05, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Eh, to achieve Total World Domination, we need to support every > > architecture out of there. Looks like a step in the wrong direction ;) > > Well, frankly speaking, Julien, last time I che

Re: Canonical and Debian

> Then how did these people end up choosing to support the same set of > architectures as Ubuntu? It seems quite possible that the groups have come up with similar criteria independently of each other or separate criteria that arrived at the same conclusion. Of course, that's some less exciting t

Re: Canonical and Debian

> If you're going to complain about a cabal, please do try to get the > facts straight: The DPL team consists of only one Canonical > employee, who was even later, after the election, added (Benjamin > "Mako" Hill) And for the record, the extent of my cabalistic work so far has been limited to ed

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon 06/06/05 20:22, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 2005-06-06 19:22:08, schrieb Peter 'p2' De Schrijver: > I do not know a mirror without Raid-5 so asuming, there are someone > which use 3Ware 3w9500 + four WD360GR (around 100 GByte) and they > pay 1200 Euro for the Controller and four small 36 GB

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > - hppa: one buildd, keeps up with package volume, but no backup buildd and > gdb seems to kill its kernel (yay); one porter machine. The "gdb kills sarti" issue shouldn't be an issue once it's upgraded to sarge and running a kerne

Re: Canonical and Debian

Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure «the best OS ever» means we have to support everything > from toasters to mainframes. If I spend time tracking down a bug > which affects users on only a single, little-used architecture > (because it's RC there) rather than tracking down

buildd machines (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >- sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter > machine. Second faster machine has been down, reportedly with disk problems. Even faster repla

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:58:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > > architectures, so that the release team doesn

Re: Canonical and Debian

Michelle Konzack([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2005-06-06 20:22: > Am 2005-06-06 19:22:08, schrieb Peter 'p2' De Schrijver: > > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro... > > Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you > > want to, even today. > >

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Julien BLACHE | If you're not willing to maintain your packages on the architectures | supported by the Project (assuming it is possible, ie the packages | aren't arch-specific), then you're not helping the project, and you'd | better spend your time on another one. | | Last time I checked, we

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Oh, you'll also note that the traditional "slow" architectures (mips, > mipsel, m68k, arm) aren't on this "problems" list. That's because a *lot* > of effort has been put into providing sufficient parallelization for each > architec

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > - sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter > machine. how powerfull would a machine need to be to be of any help here? would an ul

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Monday 06 June 2005 23:02, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:31:27 +0200, Michelle Konzack > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >This is what I not understand, because I have a full /debian-archive > >and WOODY mirror (including many CDs) and it use 420 GByte (4x 147 > >GByte) and now, POTAT

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:31:27 +0200, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This is what I not understand, because I have a full /debian-archive >and WOODY mirror (including many CDs) and it use 420 GByte (4x 147 >GByte) and now, POTATO is gone on . > >Now I try to add 4-

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the > Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an o

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:48:56PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >

Re: Storage (was: Canonical and Debian)

* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050607 10:51]: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:47:23AM +0200, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote: > > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 > > > Euro... > > > > Regard

Re: Storage (was: Canonical and Debian)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:47:23AM +0200, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote: > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 > > Euro... > > Regarding storage: "Fast, cheap and secure; pick any two". > > Good Storage have

Storage (was: Canonical and Debian)

Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 > Euro... Regarding storage: "Fast, cheap and secure; pick any two". Good Storage have more costs than the price of the cheapest disks on the market. For a file server, espec

Ports helping in World Domination? (was: Re: Canonical and Debian)

Quoting Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Eh, to achieve Total World Domination, we need to support every > architecture out of there. Looks like a step in the wrong direction ;) Well, frankly speaking, Julien, last time I checked most of so-called third world users mostly just don't care a s

Re: SCC (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > Copied from my blog: > | The other suprising thing is that SCC seems to already be more a reality > than > | was thought, since it seems Debian's main Bulgarian and Slovenian mirrors, > as > | well as all of our Belarussian, Colombian, Israili, Indian,

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Perhaps that issue needs to be brought up more directly with the port

SCC (was Re: Canonical and Debian)

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > And you can still mirror only part of the archive if you want to save > bandwidth, even today. Indeed, and some of our mirrors are already > doing so. It would, thus, be interesting if we could formalize that > somehow, which is what the first bit of the proposal is all abo

Re: Canonical and Debian

Josselin Mouette wrote: > Then how did these people end up choosing to support the same set of > architectures as Ubuntu? I know this has been discussed to death, but I > still fail to see which problems in Debian the Vancouver proposal can > actually solve. If it's a helpful datapoint, I cannot n

Re: Canonical and Debian

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Last time I checked, we were all here to help this project build the >> best OS ever. > > Please don't forget world domination. I really decided to start the > process of becoming a NM after Branded told me about his plans for total > world domin

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:24:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > * Split the architectures over two sets of mirror networks, so that > > > mirror administrators don't need 100G just to mirror Debian anymore. > > > >

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters > > > ready to do hug

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > * Split the architectures over two sets of mirror networks, so that > > mirror administrators don't need 100G just to mirror Debian anymore. > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro...

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:58:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > I don't think Steve was talking about needing more buildd maintainers; > he was talking about the task of chasing up issues involved in trying to > get required package uploads built everywhere, which currently ends up > being a ver

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:52:08PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when they > >>> do you the courtesy of informing you about their personal priorities for > >>> etch. Your choice

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 06:05:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 Yes, that is what I plan do to. > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the > release team nor the FTP team is interested in being respo

Re: Canonical and Debian

6.06.2005 pisze Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > You're forgetting that some people like Marco d'Itri believe the best OS > ever should integrate the latest and fullest set of non-free crap we can > find, and not that it should include all architectures we can reasonably > support. Don't y

Re: Canonical and Debian

Le lundi 06 juin 2005 à 17:52 +0200, Julien BLACHE a écrit : > If you're not willing to maintain your packages on the architectures > supported by the Project (assuming it is possible, ie the packages > aren't arch-specific), then you're not helping the project, and you'd > better spend your time o

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the > > Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an

Re: Canonical and Debian

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when they >>> do you the courtesy of informing you about their personal priorities for >>> etch. Your choice. >> >> "personal priorities", that's a good summary for the Vancouver >>

Re: Canonical and Debian

Am 2005-06-06 10:50:08, schrieb Matt Zimmerman: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro... > > Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you > > want to, even t

Re: Canonical and Debian

Am 2005-06-06 19:22:08, schrieb Peter 'p2' De Schrijver: > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro... > Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you > want to, even today. Using an ATA Disk for a Mirror ? Sorry, but I am using Western Dig

Re: Canonical and Debian

* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an option? Last I checked that answer was 'no'. Hell, that's most of the

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro... > Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you > want to, even today. Those who followed the dozens of earlier discussion

Re: Canonical and Debian

> > Then how did these people end up choosing to support the same set of > > architectures as Ubuntu? > > I know I've been screaming murder and hell about this, but in hindsight, > after having read the proposers' explanations (and the proposal itself > for a few more times), this certainly is not

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters > > ready to do huge amounts of porting work. For example, would you dare to > > say m68k is l

Re: Canonical and Debian

Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when they >> do you the courtesy of informing you about their personal priorities for >> etch. Your choice. > > "personal priorities", that's

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters > ready to do huge amounts of porting work. For example, would you dare to > say m68k is lacking manpower? We can speak for ourselves, thank you. -- The amount

Re: Canonical and Debian

[Josselin Mouette] > However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like > release. I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention of the proposal from the group meeting in Vancover. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou

Re: Canonical and Debian

Le lundi 06 juin 2005 à 12:56 +0100, Colin Watson a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:25:45AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in s

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:25:45AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in sarge are > > > supported in etch. > > > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the build

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:25:45AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in sarge are > > > supported in etch. > > > > Clone yourself and make y

Re: Canonical and Debian

Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in sarge are > > supported in etch. > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Ne

Re: Canonical and Debian

On 06/06/05, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ensuring that packages build and run properly on a wide variety of > > architectures is _work_. I happen to think that it's worthwhile work, > > It is work, but it's up to the maintainer

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Jun 06, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately, far too many developers do not give a shit about > anything else but i386. Yes, because they have been burned too many times by the broken buildds, broken kernels and broken toolchains which are so much common for many of the doo

Re: Canonical and Debian

"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ensuring that packages build and run properly on a wide variety of > architectures is _work_. I happen to think that it's worthwhile work, It is work, but it's up to the maintainers to track their builds. The release team really shouldn't have to

Re: Canonical and Debian

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > accusing people of being members of a Canonical-controlled cabal when they > do you the courtesy of informing you about their personal priorities for > etch. Your choice. "personal priorities", that's a good summary for the Vancouver proposal, indeed.

Re: Canonical and Debian

On 6/5/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * "Michael K. Edwards" > > | So either Debian collectively is > | willing to labor to maintain a high standard of portability and > | stability, or we need to focus on a few arches and ignore > | bugs-in-principle that don't happen to break o

Re: Canonical and Debian

* "Michael K. Edwards" | So either Debian collectively is | willing to labor to maintain a high standard of portability and | stability, or we need to focus on a few arches and ignore | bugs-in-principle that don't happen to break on those systems. At the same time, if we're releasing i386, powe

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote: Then how did these people end up choosing to support the same set of architectures as Ubuntu? There are always two explanations (at least): 1) Debian is taken over by Ubuntu. 2) Two different teams of people found the same solution for a com

Re: Canonical and Debian

On 6/5/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can either step up and make sure the > architectures you care about are in good shape for etch, or you can be a > whiny brat expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter and > accusing people of being members of a Canonical-

  1   2   >