On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Implementation:
When the current Unstable (potato) is frozen, instead of
creating a new Unstable area, we will create the Pool and
populate it with a copy of potato; plus, create an empty Working
area and wait for maintainers to start populating it;
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:39:23AM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Implementation:
When the current Unstable (potato) is frozen, instead of
creating a new Unstable area, we will create the Pool and
populate it with a copy of potato; plus,
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:39:23AM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Implementation:
When the current Unstable (potato) is frozen, instead of
creating a new Unstable area, we will create the Pool and
[Lame cross post to -announce removed, gah]
The ftpmasters do their work for the project. They exist
on behalf of the project. The project does not exist as result
of the ftpmasters, it's vice versa.
However, the FTP masters are the resident experts in field of 'ftp archive
mainti',
this, but it makes it
difficult to mirror a single architecture.
H.
http://www.debian.org/~ajt/testing-19991025.tar.gz for what code I've
done, fwiw.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:19:47AM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
[initial populating of working]
If something is in stable, then it is ``working'' by current definition.
If nothing else is declared ``working'' then the stable version should be
there.
That's a point, touché. If the maintainer
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:34:41AM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
In short:
I would like to see the difference between
1) Test this please, it'll probably work for you, I just want to know
there are no serious problems before declaring it ``working'' packages
and
2) This is what I've done
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:29:53PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
[f'up]
On Tue, 19 October 1999 21:43:57 +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not allow Source only packages ?
Something like that is the only workable thing, methinks.
Having a source where a source is 99+ % the same data is
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 10:57:51PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Torsten Landschoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
Why not allow Source only packages ?
That will win nothing. You can't use apt-get on them, have to
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 12:29:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 07:34:26PM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
I'm formally proposing the release process that we have been
discussing for over a year, known as ``package pool'', for
discussion and voting. The discussion will
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 08:32:07PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
That said, this proposal has no meaning without an actual implementation
of 'Package Pools', and none exists yet. However I know of at least 2
efforts to make one, so maybe it should be shelved until one gets
finished? [It is
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 08:48:21PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Like Gregory said, experimental serves a purpose that is not covered by
your 4 pools - software in there literally does not work..
Yes, but pool can have multiple versions of a same package.
dependencies resolvable withing
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:18:47AM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
Also, could you people please stop for a moment and really evaluate
the ammount of code needed? Get real: this is _trivial_.
We'd need code to:
* make life easy for the mirrors (either a working package pool,
or
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Yes, but pool can have multiple versions of a same package.
But how on earth is anyone supposed to know which version is the one they
want?
Hmm. I actually meant to use apt's install-time dependency
check. It's smart enought to know when something
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
Apparently I wasn't clear enough.
I had already posted by then...
The ftpmasters do their work for the project. They exist
on behalf of the project. The project does not exist as result
of the ftpmasters, it's vice versa.
True. However that doesn't always
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The ftpmasters do their work for the project. They exist
on behalf of the project. The project does not exist as result
of the ftpmasters, it's vice versa.
True. However that doesn't always seem to work that way. A good example
is that we have a consensus to
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
Then why? Does a proper bug report exist? Is it just slowly processing
bug report? Or is it something else?
There is indeed a bugreport, and it's old. Months at least. Last I heard
the only reason was that it was a lot of work...
Wichert.
--
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:30:44PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
Thus if the project (or the project leader) wants things to be
done with the archive, the ftpmasters have to get it implemented
(with or without help from others) or they will have to be
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 12:12:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:
Yes, but pool can have multiple versions of a same package.
But how on earth is anyone supposed to know which version is the one they
want?
Please elaborate. What are you talking
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 04:06:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:18:47AM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
Also, could you people please stop for a moment and really evaluate
the ammount of code needed? Get real: this is _trivial_.
We'd need code to:
* make life
20 matches
Mail list logo
