Quoting Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Most packages are not tested automatically at all.
Unfortunately not.
> Most cross compiled software also runs 24/7. I have yet to see problems
> produced by cross compiling the code.
...
> I don't think the risk is real considering the amoun
> > > * By using a cross-compiler, by definition you use a compiler that is
> > > not the same as the default compiler for your architecture. As such,
> > > your architecture is no longer self-hosting. This may introduce bugs
> > > when people do try to build software for your architecture n
* Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050824 15:52]:
> On 8/24/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Wouldn't that at least catch the non-platform-specific bugs?
> >
> > They are usually caught fairly quickly. The problem here is what to
> > do in the cases where nobody cares en
On 8/24/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:13:50PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> Do you want to take the chance of finding out the hard way after having
> built 10G (or more) worth of software?
>
> This is not a case of embedded software where you
On 8/24/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Wouldn't that at least catch the non-platform-specific bugs?
>
> They are usually caught fairly quickly. The problem here is what to
> do in the cases where nobody cares enough about the port to fix
> toolchain breakages which only affect
* Olaf van der Spek
| On 8/24/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > * Olaf van der Spek
| >
| > | I understand most maintainers don't try the new toolchain themselves,
| > | but wouldn't it be possible for someone else to build the entire
| > | archive (or parts of it by multiple pe
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:13:50PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * Many packages don't support cross-compiling, and those that do may
> > have bugs in their makefiles that make cross-compiling either harder
> > or impossible.
> > * You can't run the test suites of the software you'r
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:13:50PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * Many packages don't support cross-compiling, and those that do may
> > have bugs in their makefiles that make cross-compiling either harder
> > or impossible.
> > * You can't run the test suites of the software you'r
> * Many packages don't support cross-compiling, and those that do may
> have bugs in their makefiles that make cross-compiling either harder
> or impossible.
> * You can't run the test suites of the software you're compiling, at
> least not directly.
> * There's a serious problem with automa
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:42:28AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> And what about cross-compiling?
Cross-compiling is no magic wand that can save us from the slow
architectures. There are quite a number of problems with
cross-compiling:
* Many packages don't support cross-compiling, and those t
On 8/24/05, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Olaf van der Spek
>
> | I understand most maintainers don't try the new toolchain themselves,
> | but wouldn't it be possible for someone else to build the entire
> | archive (or parts of it by multiple people) and (automatically) report
>
Hi,
* GOTO Masanori ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050824 10:38]:
> At Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:58:24 +0200,
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > - must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
> > architecture
>
> Does this part mean "developer-accessible machine is always usable for
> all debian develop
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:04:40PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:58:24 +0200,
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > - must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
> > architecture
>
> Does this part mean "developer-accessible machine is always usable for
> all debian d
* Olaf van der Spek
| I understand most maintainers don't try the new toolchain themselves,
| but wouldn't it be possible for someone else to build the entire
| archive (or parts of it by multiple people) and (automatically) report
| bugs?
With the toolchain, it won't help to just rebuild the ar
At Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:58:24 +0200,
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> - must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
> architecture
Does this part mean "developer-accessible machine is always usable for
all debian developers"? Does such machine have dchroot for
old-stable/stable/unstable ?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:06:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (I mean, how does my proposal to drop the 'has users' requirement in favor
> > of 'do we have developers' ignore the resource usage. I certainly do not
> > dispute that a port uses resources.)
> Ok, then perhaps it doesn't ignor
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 23.51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > > really matters: can we (the De
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:58:06 -0500]:
> The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> one we have. As promoters of free software, we also are committed to
> have packages build for our user
* Sven Luther [Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:17:10 +0200]:
> > Sven Luther dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200]:
> > > the security level would still be higher using only official
> > > buildds and centraly controled.
> > > The only reason this does not happen is that the ftp-masters dislike the
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> "Vancouver" has gotten a very specific meaning in the Debian
> community: one of a visionary proposal[1] that received quite its
> share of flames from many Debian contributors, including
> myself. Since it appeared to many of us that the intentional result
> of this propos
Hello David,
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2005-08-21 19:44 -0400]:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Wouter Verhelst]
> > >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> > >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the w
On Monday 22 August 2005 23.51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus
> > > I propose we only limit on the
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/23/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of
>> > the GCC 4.0 failures and regressions over the last year while p
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:42:50AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an
> > "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be
> > considering requiring th
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:12:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:51:52 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> >> > really matters:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:51:52 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I
>> > propose
On 8/23/05, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of
> > the GCC 4.0 failures and regressions over the last year while porting
> > for amd64. The fact that many maintainers
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of
> the GCC 4.0 failures and regressions over the last year while porting
> for amd64. The fact that many maintainers have not yet applied, or at
> least carefully reviewed and applied a
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:45:28PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> > buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> > one we have. As promoters
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I
> > propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there people who
> > are willing
[Adrian von Bidder]
> Why not have a per-port blacklist (maintained by the port
> maintainers, not the package maintainers) of packages that are not
> suitable for a port
They do.
> and just put up a section in the release notes (or wherever) on why
> such-and-such packages are not available.
T
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:32:31AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sven Luther dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200]:
> > > What about packages built on developer machines, but using the same
> > > software as on the official debian buildds? I mean using sbuild in a
> > > dedicated chroot. I s
On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > > a new version of a toolchain packa
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
> > remember that the ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
>> a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I
> propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there people who
> are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader, platform
> specific
On Monday 22 August 2005 12.58, Marc Haber wrote:
> I can imagine that for archs with less than 50 machines reporting to
> popcon it could be possible to have some kind of registration
> mechanism.
Uh, please don't add huge technical overhead for corner cases that will
rarely happen, if ever. I
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 18:01]:
> Huh? Would an off-the-shelf old 1.5GHz P4 lag behind a top-of-the-line
> m68k or ARM?
If you manage to put enough ram in the current arm: Definitly yes. Last
time when I was about to buy me a new machine, the only reason why I
didn't buy an arm-m
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an
> "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be
> considering requiring there to be a glibc/gcc/binutils upstream for each
> port, so that we don
Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200]:
> > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- requirements that
> > a port would need to fulfill in order to be allowed on the mirror
> > network -
Sven Luther dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200]:
> > What about packages built on developer machines, but using the same
> > software as on the official debian buildds? I mean using sbuild in a
> > dedicated chroot. I sometimes do that for my packages when buildd are
> > lagging or when
* Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 17:01]:
> On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]:
> > > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems
On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> one we have. As promoters of free software, we also are committed to
> have packages build for our
On 8/22/05, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? The maintainer can still embed "rm -rf /" in the postinst either
> way. We need to be able to trust developers.
>
> Similarly, sponsored packages should be rebuilt because the project
> hasn't decided to official trust those contribut
On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]:
> > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > > a new version of a toolchain package is upload
Hi!
Manoj Srivastava [2005-08-22 7:58 -0500]:
> The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> one we have. As promoters of free software, we also are committed to
> have packages build for our users, in a
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:27:33 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Also, as Manoj[1] and others have pointed out, sponsors are
> _expected_ to recompile packages they sign, but I believe it is not
> part of policy.
Which policy?
> So I ask again: Is this an intended (and
Am Sonntag, 21. August 2005 03.58 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> Hi all,
Good morning
Most of the time I only read on this list and so I've done with this
discussion. But sometimes I dare to write something and suggest somthing ;-)
(see below).
> Initial:
> - must be publically available to buy
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:51:55AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Sven Luther a écrit :
> > >All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> > >developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages insta
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:51:55 +0200, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
>> All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not
>> on developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages
>> installed, or even possibly experimental or home-modifie
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 10:42]:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 4. The requirement that any port has to have 5 developers support it,
> >and be able to demonstrate that there are (at least) 50 users.
> How should this demonstratio
* Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]:
> On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
> > remember that the new glibc/gcc
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:19:38 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> 4. The requirement that any port has to have 5 developers support it,
>>and be able to demonstrate that there are (at least) 50 users.
>
>How sho
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:51:55AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> >All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> >developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
> >even
> >possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > - binary packages must be built from unmodified Debian source
> >
> > Uhm? When there is a new arch upcoming, they need to modifiy the Debian
> > source, at least sometimes, right?
>
> Yes, and this happens. I've already had requests to modify my
> Ar
Sven Luther a écrit :
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or even
possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
What about packages built on developer machines, but using the same
software
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:19:38AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > 3. The veto powers given to the DSA team, the Security team, and the
> >Release team, on a release of any given port.
> >
> >Some of us feared for abuse of this veto power. All understood the
> >problems that exist
On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
> remember that the new glibc/gcc blocked non-toolchain progress for
> months during the beginnin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22-08-2005 08:24, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
>>>Vancouver wo
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:30:08PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> I do rebuild them and more on this that I download the .orig.tar.gz
> for myself from the official upstream location and check the diff
> ofcourse. This may sound paranoid, but this is me.
As a user, I certainly appreciate t
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:19:38AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 1. The requirement that 'an architecture must be publically available to
> >buy new'.
> >
> >It was explained that this requirement was not made to be a
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 1. The requirement that 'an architecture must be publically available to
>buy new'.
>
>It was explained that this requirement was not made to be applied
>retroactively to already existing ports; rather, it was designed
Wouter,
Thank you for your work in preparing this; I think this summary is a
good beginning for revisiting the questions the Vancouver meeting poses
for etch.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> "Vancouver" has gotten a very specific meaning in the Debian community
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements
Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - binaries must have been built and signed by official Debian
>> Developers
>
> Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
> Debian Developers.
I always build the packages before sponsor it since I usually check
against
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
>
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> accept d
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:29:51PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> >b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
> >support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> accept de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21-08-2005 21:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:28:55 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>
>>Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by
>>official Debian Developers.
>
>
> Can you
[Wouter Verhelst]
>b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
>support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
accept decisions made by a majority of debian developers, or rejects
democratic control,
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:55 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
> > Debian Developers.
> >
> > Is that intended to change, or is it a typo in the proposal?
> >
> I don't know what is the rule but perso
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:28:55 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by
> official Debian Developers.
Can you share with us the list of developers merely signing
sponsored packages, so action can be taken?
> Is that
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
> Debian Developers.
Ahem, no! As the sponsor, you should rebuild the package from source using
the diff from the packager, and using the upstream sources, not
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
> Debian Developers.
They are supposed to be BUILT by the sponsor of non-DDs, not just signed.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements
Hi Jonas!
You wrote:
> > - binaries must have been built and signed by official Debian
> > Developers
>
> Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
> Debian Developers.
Sponsors do build the packages they sponsor themselves.
Or at least, they should.
--
Kind re
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:28 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- req
Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Currently, sponsored packages are only signed, not built, by official
Debian Developers.
Is that intended to change, or is it a typo in the proposal?
I don't know what is the rule but personnally, I never upload a package
I haven't build, I rebuild all packages I sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21-08-2005 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- requirements that
> a port would need to fulfill in order to be allowed on t
78 matches
Mail list logo
