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 tim
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.]
Eith
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 differ
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 associat
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_sid&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&kfreeb
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 sho
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 gu
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:
>
> http://udd.debian
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:
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=jessie_or_sid&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&
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
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
massi
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?
12 matches
Mail list logo
