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
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
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 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
