also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1145 +0100]:
> > This is a good point, but I wonder whether it should remain
> > a show-stopper. Wouldn't the logical solution be to stock up the
> > security team?
>
> The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to incr
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:21:17AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
> > * martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> > > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> > > then freeze testing as b
also sprach Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1053 +0100]:
> It is, however, widely considered a feature that a package has the
> same version on all released arches. I'd vouch for keeping that
> requirement.
Are we really to expect a lot of disparities if we loosen the
requirement?
--
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:22:31 +0100, martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
>> That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
>> a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
>> corr
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.18.1021 +0100]:
> That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
> a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
> correct, it's likely not going to be in effect ever.
and if we have different versions
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
> * martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> > then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
>
> Because than the security te
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
Because than the security team may need to fix 11 different source
packages (or how many architectures we act
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:00 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
> > This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
> > x86, x86-64 & ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
> > m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"
>
also sprach Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
> This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
> x86, x86-64 & ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
> m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"
Well, there seem to be no more than two ways to get rid of this
pr
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:51 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
> > * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
> > from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
> > whatever reason he has)
>
> Why
also sprach David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
> * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
> from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
> whatever reason he has)
Why do we make a package foo's entry to testing dependent on whether
foo
11 matches
Mail list logo
