Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:28:58AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> It does? How does that work for packages with only a minimal control
>> file that generate a full contol file during build?
>
> Such packages need to make sure their initial contr
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:28:58AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > [Goswin von Brederlow]
> >> >> Which also av
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> >> Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
>> >> architecture debian introd
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:18:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [Goswin von Brederlow]
> >> Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
> >> architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
> >> the A
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
>> architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
>> the Architecture: line.
>
> I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use !foo in the Archit
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:42:54AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
> > Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
> > architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
> > the Architecture: line.
>
> I suppose it'd be nice to be abl
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:08:14AM -0500, Rudy Godoy wrote:
> On 22/02/2005 at 10:11 Wouter Verhelst wrote...
>
> > I agree that we should not continue to provide software for outdated
> > hardware platforms just for the sake of it; but as it is, there are
> > still people interested in m68k (som
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Which also avoids that packages will be unavailable on every new
> architecture debian introduces because the maintainer has to adjust
> the Architecture: line.
I suppose it'd be nice to be able to use !foo in the Architecture: line
for cases where something is known not
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rudy Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Regarding this issue I was thinking about it since I've faced in a
>> situation where a package[0] I maintain does have "high" hardware
>> requirements, which led me to think if it is really wise to have
Rudy Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regarding this issue I was thinking about it since I've faced in a
> situation where a package[0] I maintain does have "high" hardware
> requirements, which led me to think if it is really wise to have it
> with "arch: any" since probably in some arches it
On 22/02/2005 at 10:11 Wouter Verhelst wrote...
> I agree that we should not continue to provide software for outdated
> hardware platforms just for the sake of it; but as it is, there are
> still people interested in m68k (some hobbyists, some embedded
> developers, some who just use their old
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 05:27:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> and if we relax this to only require "within 10 days of any source upload,
> assuming the source isn't buggy, there must be a binary upload for this
> security bug", we would be kicking out
> alpha arm mips mipsel powerpc sparc
I
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > - security response time (more builds to do)
> > Which DSAs came out later than they should have because of this
> > supposed delay? Nor could this possibly slow release.
> DSAs are occasionally delayed waiting on builds. The prive
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was quoting a post with actual download numbers that actually demonstrate
> > that the vast majority of users are on i386: see http://blog.bofh.it/id_66.
> But that doesn't
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:25:04PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> [snip]
> > But that's OK. Our amd64 users just use the Alioth site instead of our
> > wonderful mirror network, and track it as unstable. I mean, it's so much
> > more effective to have it all hitting alioth for d
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:38:21PM -0500, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> The problem with these numbers is the architecture "all."
> over 27% of files downloaded don't count since you don't know what
> systems they are running on.
All of these people having the time to comment this statistical
sample
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 04:39 +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> For your convenience, I quote the numbers here again along with a quick
> percentage calculation:
>
> > md <- read.table("/tmp/md.txt", header=TRUE, row.names=1)
> > md <- cbind(md, percent=round(100*md[,1]/md["total",1], 4))
> > md
>
Joel Aelwyn wrote:
[snip]
> But that's OK. Our amd64 users just use the Alioth site instead of our
> wonderful mirror network, and track it as unstable. I mean, it's so much
> more effective to have it all hitting alioth for download, right? Thought
> so.
You probably should inform yourself before
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:25 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> [snip]
> > Oops. You jumped from "second most common" to "second most important",
> > as if they're synonym
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:57:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:25 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> [snip]
> > Oops. You jumped from "second most common" to "second most important", as
> > if they're synony
On Feb 23, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These numbers show a cross-section of users who use this particular mirror.
> It is not represenative of the world as a whole. Far from it.
Agreed. But I have not seen any other reports so far.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digita
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Just because an arch is fairly unused doesn't mean we should drop
it. We should drop an arch just like we would drop a package - if it
doesn't work, no one wants to maintain it, and if keeping it would
delay release.
--
Petri
[Dirk Eddelbuettel]
> [1] I removed the entry "unknown" -- this corresponds to assuming that
> "unknown" as population corresponds to the distribution of all "known"
> dists shown here. Lacking knowledge of what drives "unknown", this
> appears fair. If someone has a breakdown o
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 22:25 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
[snip]
> Oops. You jumped from "second most common" to "second most important", as
> if they're synonymous. Maybe they are to some people, but that's not at all
> beyond de
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:25:25 -0500
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > reports percent
> > hurd-i386 1 0.0175
> > kfreebsd-i386 1 0.0175
> > ppc64 1 0.0175
> > arm
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:11AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> reports percent
> hurd-i386 1 0.0175
> kfreebsd-i386 1 0.0175
> ppc64 1 0.0175
> arm 2 0.0351
> mipsel 2 0.0351
> m68k3 0.0526
>
Adam Heath debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > files.downloaded percent
> > i386 1285422 70.5079
> > all 504789 27.6886
> > powerpc17754 0.9738
> > ia64 10111 0.5546
> > sparc 33
Don Armstrong debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I
> > demonstrated the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five
> > other arches.
>
> You used package download results from one (1!) debian mirr
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> files.downloaded percent
> i386 1285422 70.5079
> all 504789 27.6886
> powerpc17754 0.9738
> ia64 10111 0.5546
> sparc 3336 0.1830
> arm 850 0.0466
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:17:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, I'll say differently. I've produced the last several sets of
>> woody point release CD and DVD images. Each arch produced takes
>> time. Reducing the sets produced would make
Em Ter, 2005-02-22 Ãs 15:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
> > > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' out
Petri Latvala wrote:
[snip]
> Also, the first 16 bytes will differ in an ELF format .o, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/09/msg00201.html
That's incorrect, strictly speaking. The first (magic) bytes have
to be identical, only the padding bytes could be different (but are
usually zer
"Thaddeus H. Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Not private. Reply on-list if you wish.]
>
>> However, I do think that not including amd64 (while keeping mips and
>> friends) in the sarge release due to mirroring problems is ridiculous.
>
> Amen, brother.
>
>> ... packages are uploaded too fre
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > - network bandwith (witness the discussion on mirror efficiency),
>
> Mirrors don't have to (and don't need to) copy all the archs. They
> can support whichever ones they want. Nor could this possibly slow
> release.
>
> > - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:38:46AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> Why not? Is there something non-deterministic in the compilation
> process?
>
> Ideally, version x of gcc should produce the same output natively
> as when cross-compiling.
>
> Or have I missed something important?
-frandom-s
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I'll say differently. I've produced the last several sets of
> woody point release CD and DVD images. Each arch produced takes
> time. Reducing the sets produced would make it much easier/faster to
> get this done.
Does this delay release?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> Or have I missed something important?
Yes. There are a jillion different machine code programs that do the
same thing and a compiler could generate any one of them in response
to the same source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 18:00]:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> > listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> > thing to do, not having two diverg
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 18:00]:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> > listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> > thing to do, not having two diverg
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
> listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
> thing to do, not having two divergent systems.
sbuild includes some centralized build-dependenc
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
>> > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' output to determine wh
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
> > done to use ``apt-cache policy'' output to determine whether the right
> > version of a package is availa
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 15:15]:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> >> then check what you got? Because you can't
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
>> then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
>> at least version X else fail?
>
> Yes,
Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
>> > that some installed versions are insuf
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
>> > that some installed versions are insuf
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> > the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler, then...
> And a hell of a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:22:37PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "Can" and "should" are different stories.
> > When there's a missing build-dep on one arch, it might make sense to stop
> > that package from being distributed for other archs, so they don't waste
> > their time on that.
> > You
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:23:51PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Wouter. That sounds like a big improvement.
>
> By the way, does this duplicate the functionality of 'apt-get build-dep'?
Possibly. Sbuild, however, predates the implementation of 'apt-get
build-dep', so
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:50:02PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> > then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
> > at least version
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:51:16PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:42PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > Bastian Blank worked on a database that handles all these build-deps on
> > > the
> > > central wanna-build replacement. The idea is to give out just those
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - cpu cycles (witness Wouter's request to compile big packages
> > rarely),
>
> So you're saying that if we dropped the mips buildd's we'd have more
> cycles for other archs?
N
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would it make sense to examine the queue to see if any packages have
> similar build dependencies and then move them to the top of the queue so
> they build immediately after the current one?
> or to re-sequence the queue to group package with similar build
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Maybe we should pick up on Petter's suggestion of stricter buildd
> requirements.
> Maybe we should only build base and essential packages for the minor
> architectures [ after, apt-source is there for everybody to go further ]
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64),
>>
>>But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which
>>doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For your convenience, I quote the numbers here again along with a quick
> percentage calculation:
> files.downloaded percent
> i386 1285422 70.5079
> all 504789 27.6886
> powerpc17754 0.9738
> ia64
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 Feb 2005 20:54:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - security response time (more builds to do)
>>
>>Which DSAs came out later than they should have because of this
>>supposed
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:44:42PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Bastian Blank worked on a database that handles all these build-deps on the
> > central wanna-build replacement. The idea is to give out just those packages
> Even that sounds too complicated. Really, each buildd can work this out
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
> then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
> at least version X else fail?
Yes, that's how it works currently.
Since this also makes
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:46:37PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:30:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > There are small KDE applications that require most of the KDE dependency
> > chain to be installed, while on the other hand XFree86's build
> > dependency list is (rela
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:48:48PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Running such a system in parallel with the current systems (and comparing
> the outputs) might be a good test for gcc-as-cross-compiler, then...
And a hell of a lot of work. You can't just create checksums of the
resulting binaries a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
> > that some installed versions are insufficient for the build?
>
> Because the current b
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:42:15AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> - scarce resource such as release managers, ftp admins, ...
> >> if we have to look after arches that are *not really used*.
> >
> >All of whom have sai
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64),
>
>But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which
>doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not carry it if they want
>to. Nor could this possibly
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 06:20]:
> Security autobuilders are on their way. You could make the argument that if
> we only had a couple of architectures we wouldn't really need security
> autobuilders, but I think that automating everything that can be automated
> is a Good Thing
* Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 05:45]:
> It delays our releases in the sense that it affects our resources:
> - available maintainer and developer time,
You mean, we have some great people working as porters and also giving a
general helping hand, and we would loose them if we thro
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:10:36AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> The main problem with distcc across architectures is the FUD
> surrounding whether gcc-as-cross-compiler spits out the same code as
> gcc-as-native-compiler. The gcc team seem to be very hesitant to make
> any guarantees about tha
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I demonstrated
> the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five other arches.
"lack of usage" here means "much rarer usage" of course. .001 is not
zero.
And your point was supposedly
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:24:28AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
> [ a lot of stuff but omitting one critical argument of mine ]
> Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I demonstrated
> the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > What would help save many hours on slow systems is having a script
> > automatically set "Dep-Wait: libbfoo (>> 1.2-3)" for all new sources
> > according to Bu
On 21 Feb 2005 20:54:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - security response time (more builds to do)
>
>Which DSAs came out later than they should have because of this
>supposed delay? Nor could this possibly slow release.
Th
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> But to the best of my knowledge, Marco's (blog) post from a few months
> ago which showed download from ftp.it.debian.org by architecture stands
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> a
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I
> demonstrated the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five
> other arches.
You used package download results from one (1!) debian mirror to
demonstrate the supposed lack of usage. H
Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
[ a lot of stuff but omitting one critical argument of mine ]
Thanks for cutting and completely ignoring the part where I demonstrated
the lack of usage beyond i386 and maybe four or five other arches.
I rest my case. These arches have little benefit, but as
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:39:22AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all
> > > other
> > > arches, with a fraction of
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:56:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It does seem prudent to find a way to permit a release on x86 and
> > ppc before all architectures are complete. Especially if this
> > tactic will give Debian the ability to relea
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does seem prudent to find a way to permit a release on x86 and
> ppc before all architectures are complete. Especially if this
> tactic will give Debian the ability to release more often. Is it so
> bad to allow the smaller architectures to lag as lon
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was quoting a post with actual download numbers that actually demonstrate
> that the vast majority of users are on i386: see http://blog.bofh.it/id_66.
But that doesn't show what you said you believe, which is that
supporting other archs slows th
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But to the best of my knowledge, Marco's (blog) post from a few months
> ago which showed download from ftp.it.debian.org by architecture stands
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> arches, with a fractio
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:30:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > >> Hypothetical daily KDE builds would also insanely incr
Matthew Palmer debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> > arches, with a fraction of users in maybe two, three, four other arches ---
> > and comparitively nobody in
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson debian.org> writes:
>> And for the more obscure architectures, virtually all of the testing
>> comes from the build of the package. How many people out there are
>> actually using e.g. KDE on mips enough to actually find any portabilit
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> arches, with a fraction of users in maybe two, three, four other arches ---
> and comparitively nobody in the other fringe arches we keep around for n
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:15:58AM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> But to the best of my knowledge, Marco's (blog) post from a few months
> ago which showed download from ftp.it.debian.org by architecture stands
> undisputed: essentially all users are on i386 clearly dominating all other
> ar
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> What would help save many hours on slow systems is having a script
> automatically set "Dep-Wait: libbfoo (>> 1.2-3)" for all new sources
> according to Build-Depends to prevent useless buildd attempts and
> failures and manual
Brian Nelson debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > But a total of eleven is insane.
> >
> > It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
> >
> > It also vastly incr
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 16:12 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Yeah, definitely. If our goal is making our software as portable and
> bug-free as possible, we'd be better off running fewer arches but with a
> greater variety of compilers.
>
> Now if there were only any viable free alternatives to GCC..
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson writes:
>>> That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc)
>>> would be enough to reveal nearly all portability bugs.
>>
>> It required several architectures to un
Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> > > But a total of eleven is insane.
>> >
>> > It is somet
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> > But a total of eleven is insane.
>>
>> It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
>>
>> It al
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson writes:
>> That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc)
>> would be enough to reveal nearly all portability bugs.
>
> It required several architectures to uncover all of the portability bugs in
> Chrony. ppc was no
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Steve Langasek]
>> The four most common porting problems for software are endianness
>> (differs between i386/amd64 and powerpc), word size (differs between
>> i386/powerpc and amd64), char signedness (differs between i386/amd64
>> and powerpc), and u
Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > But a total of eleven is insane.
> >
> > It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
> >
> > It also vastly increases the qual
Brian Nelson writes:
> That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc)
> would be enough to reveal nearly all portability bugs.
It required several architectures to uncover all of the portability bugs in
Chrony. ppc was not one of them.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 11:13 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > But a total of eleven is insane.
> >
> > It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
> >
>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > But a total of eleven is insane.
>
> It is sometimes hard to get them all to work, yes.
>
> It also vastly increases the quality of the Free Software in our
>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >> Hypothetical daily KDE builds would also insanely increase the amount of
> >> network traffic being used by the mirror pulse and
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[snip]
> But at the moment, there are very few problems with the autobuilders,
> it seem. The packages with missing builds on some archs are listedon
> http://developer.skolelinux.no/info/cdbygging/distdiff-all.html.gz>,
> and it is not bad compared to earlier.
>
> Mi
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Hypothetical daily KDE builds would also insanely increase the amount of
>> network traffic being used by the mirror pulse and people upgrading
>> their home boxes, so it isn't just a buildd problem.
>
> Per
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
