Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> 1. release team
>>
>> Another arch to sync. And, as with every arch, there would be some
>> packages that fail just there. There are still a lot of amd64 specific
>> FTBFS bugs (lots
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sorry, but I still don't understand it:
> >
> > You could continue to offer the complete archive as it is today, and it
> > shouldn't be a big amount of work to offer one or more
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, but I still don't understand it:
>
> You could continue to offer the complete archive as it is today, and it
> shouldn't be a big amount of work to offer one or more partial archives
> (e.g. only stable or only i386) from different locations - and
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
> > > binary arm packages being pushed
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
>> binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between
>> testing and unstable are shared (
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
> > binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between
> > testing and unstable are shared
hoi :)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
> binary arm packages being pushed each day, as the packages between
> testing and unstable are shared (and only few packages go in via t-p-u).
> So, the
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050425 18:20]:
> Le lundi 25 avril 2005 à 16:54 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
> > > See, that just makes no sense whatsover. You can claim either:
> > >
> > > 1) Adding AMD64 would increase the mirror load unacceptably
> > > OR
> > > 2) Removing ARM
Le lundi 25 avril 2005 à 16:54 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
> > See, that just makes no sense whatsover. You can claim either:
> >
> > 1) Adding AMD64 would increase the mirror load unacceptably
> > OR
> > 2) Removing ARM would not have a significant effect on the mirror load
> >
> > bu
* Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050425 16:45]:
> On 23-Apr-05, 17:24 (CDT), Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Beyond the fact that it is too late to add another architecture for
> > sarge, removing arm from sarge does not make the mirror pulses much
> > smaller - and AFAIK the si
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:24:28AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 23-Apr-05, 17:24 (CDT), Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Beyond the fact that it is too late to add another architecture for
> > sarge, removing arm from sarge does not make the mirror pulses much
> > smaller - and A
On 23-Apr-05, 17:24 (CDT), Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beyond the fact that it is too late to add another architecture for
> sarge, removing arm from sarge does not make the mirror pulses much
> smaller - and AFAIK the size of the mirror pulses is the main problem.
See, that just m
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A silly question to you as release manager:
What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
as 12th architecture with sarge?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>> > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
>> > mirr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
A silly question to you as release manager:
What exactly are the technical reasons
I demand that Bernd Eckenfels may or may not have written...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with
>> our mirrors
> We dont need to have all architectures on all mirrors. And for the
> less-often used architectures w
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050424 00:30]:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with
> > > our
> > > mirrors due to the
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:24:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050424 00:15]:
> > Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with
> > > our
> > > mirrors due to t
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> > mirrors due to the size of the archive.
>
> Given that - if I believe the security
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050424 00:15]:
> Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> > mirrors due to the size of the archive.
> Given that - if I believe the security team [1] - w
Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 15:18 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> If we dropped arm, it would be to drop arm, not to trade it for something --
> it's way too late to be talking about adding amd64 to the main archive for
> sarge.
Why? If the amd64 archive already uses the same sources as the main
a
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> > mirrors due to the size of the archive.
> Given that - if I believe the security t
Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> mirrors due to the size of the archive.
Given that - if I believe the security team [1] - we are not able to
provide security updates for arm, even in woo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> mirrors
We dont need to have all architectures on all mirrors. And for the
less-often used architectures we event dont need to care, since one or two
mirrors can easyly hold a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> A silly question to you as release manager:
>
>Silly indeed. Use the list archives. You cannot miss the monstruous threads
>about it.
>
>> What exactly are the techni
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > A silly question to you as release manager:
>
> > What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
> > as 12th architecture with sarge?
>
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Well, the other big ones would be the installer, being synced up on sources,
> > and the ability to do point releases. It seems the first two are addressed,
> > and t
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I might have missed this email in the huge threads, but could you point
> me to an email explaining why increasing the archive space by less than
> 10% exacly hits a hard limit in mirror space?
No, I cannot.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 11:40:03AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A silly question to you as release manager:
>
> Silly indeed. Use the list archives. You cannot miss the monstruous threads
> about it.
I didn't miss the threads, but much o
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> A silly question to you as release manager:
Silly indeed. Use the list archives. You cannot miss the monstruous threads
about it.
> What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
> as 12th architecture with sarge?
Mirror space
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Well, the other big ones would be the installer, being synced up on sources,
> and the ability to do point releases. It seems the first two are addressed,
> and the third seems to be more or less the same question as that of secu
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 07:55:52AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >> It will only be necessary to describe the current situation
> >> in the official release documents and include pointers
> >> to the separate amd64 archive, which will be provid
Hello Steve,
thank you for your reply to my status report.
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
>> It will only be necessary to describe the current situation
>> in the official release documents and include pointers
>> to the separate amd64 archive, which will be provided
>> by the
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> As a preparation for the amd64 porters irc meeting tomorrow,
> I tried to build the complete Debian sarge archive for the
> amd64 architecture from the unpatched Debian sarge sources.
>
> The result was very encouraging.
Hi Andreas,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> I consider this a good way to split up responsibilities.
> This way of handling things could serve as a good example of
> how other ports may be organized after sarge is released.
I certainly agree with that; unfortu
As a preparation for the amd64 porters irc meeting tomorrow,
I tried to build the complete Debian sarge archive for the
amd64 architecture from the unpatched Debian sarge sources.
It took about a week to build all 8800+ source packages on a standard
single processor EM64T-P4 box (Every package w
36 matches
Mail list logo
