On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:53:05AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[1] I certainly wouldn't have space for something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z800_2066_JKU.jpeg
(and much less the money. Yeah I know that is technically not an s390,
but as I understand it, an s390 should
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:53:05AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[1] I certainly wouldn't have space for something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z800_2066_JKU.jpeg
(and much less the money. Yeah I know that is technically not an s390,
but as I understand it, an s390 should
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from
the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))):
On 2013-11-03 16:03, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=jessie_or_sidmerged=ignfnewerval=7kfreebsd=1sortby=severitysorto=desccseverity=1ctags=1
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Niels Thykier wrote:
In this regard; I am guilty of filing some those bugs without tagging
them. Honestly, adding the tags get a bit in the way right now. If a
package FTBFS on 4 architectures, I have to dig up 3-4 different
usertags (with different user) and associate it
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Niels Thykier wrote:
In this regard; I am guilty of filing some those bugs without tagging
them. Honestly, adding the tags get a bit in the way right now. If a
package FTBFS on 4 architectures, I have to dig up 3-4 different
Op 05-11-13 19:50, Don Armstrong schreef:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Niels Thykier wrote:
In this regard; I am guilty of filing some those bugs without tagging
them. Honestly, adding the tags get a bit in the way right now. If a
package FTBFS on 4
Hi,
On 05/11/13 18:50, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Don Armstrong wrote:
This sounds like a case where we should turn these usertags into fully
fledged tags. [Or alternatively, they should just be made usertags under
the debian-po...@lists.debian.org user or similar.]
Either of
Op 05-11-13 20:40, Steven Chamberlain schreef:
[pseudopackages]
Would that be only for generic issues with a port, not specific to a
package? I doubt this would be used much. These bugs might typically
be reassigned to kernel packages or eglibc anyway.
Eventually, yes, but that doesn't
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, I did ask for the creation of port-specific tags back at
debconf8 (if I'm not mistaken), but you told me to go for usertags
instead ;-)
Sounds familiar. Usertags have the advantage of not requiring me to do
any work. But presumably at the time
On 2013-11-05 21:13, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Yes, I think that's a good idea; it would avoid issues where
maintainers are waiting on porters and vice versa, since the
reassigning of a bug to a port pseudopackage would make it clear who's
waiting for
On 03/11/13 10:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
Come to think of it; maybe we should have a BTS page for each of the
ports (e.g. a pseudo package in the BTS).
We've had this on kfreebsd, due it to having been a release goal:
On 2013-11-03 16:03, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 03/11/13 10:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
Come to think of it; maybe we should have a BTS page for each of the
ports (e.g. a pseudo package in the BTS).
We've had this on kfreebsd, due it to having been a release goal:
On 2013-11-03 23:04, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
I suppose a sponsor-only DD could be sufficient, provided that the
sponsor knows the porters well enough to be willing to sign off on e.g.
access to porter boxes. I guess the
On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)):
[...]
As mentioned we are debating whether the 5 DDs requirement still makes
sense. Would you say that we should abolish the requirement for DD
porters completely? I.e. Even
Niels Thykier dixit:
Then there are more concrete things like ruby's test suite seg. faulting
on ia64 (#593141), ld seg. faulting with --as-needed on ia64
And only statically linked klibc-compiled executables work on IA64,
not dynamically linked ones. I’ve looked into it, but Itanic is so
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2013-10-29 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Niels Thykier writes (Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze
info)):
[...]
As mentioned we are debating whether the 5 DDs requirement still makes
sense. Would you say that we
16 matches
Mail list logo