On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, ...
I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need
for
NEW for the creation of some new binary package [...]
Sven, you bring
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:02:50PM -0700, Jason Self wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:09:39 +0200 Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the Linux kernel will work on them, the porting should be fairly
straightforward. Ultimately it depends on how many Debian developers
have or get access
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Now, the remaining question that has me baffled is how you reconcile the
factof waiting for NEW, with the 'vitality' part of your DPL plateform.
Wait, we sent off the ftp-assistant on a two-week vacation in *Mexico*
to relax and gain
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Anthony, ...
I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need
for
NEW
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:21:13AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Now, the remaining question that has me baffled is how you reconcile the
factof waiting for NEW, with the 'vitality' part of your DPL plateform.
Wait, we sent off the
dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though all the pieces may be there, I don't know if the installer
knows how to deal with these systems. That might be a question for
debian-boot.
It doesn't. There's a bunch of little problems, and I've been working on
those with Colin Watson. There's
On Thursday 01 June 2006 01:31, Sven Luther wrote:
[DPL's platform quothe:]
And sometimes doing it fast *helps* you to do it right, by letting you
try out solutions and act on the feedback -- that is, the release early,
release often philosophy
You see how i can see a serious contradiction
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Gene,
You could donate to SPI [1], the legal umbrella organization for Debian.
Or you could tell us from which country you are and we can tell you, if
there any other organizations, which accept money for Debian
Anthony Towns replies to Donna Orlowski:
Sorry you haven't had much of a straight answer. You have four options:
...
(4) Cheque or wire transfer to Debian UK, funds marked for use only with
approval of DPL or authorised delegate -- for details contact Steve
McIntyre [EMAIL
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:56:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
No, I complained about the kernel team's practice of *coupling* critical
fixes with irrelevant changes that require NEW processing, just as I would
Bastian said :
-15 will again hit NEW.
And you asked :
And if there are
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:57:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Nobody asked me. I have no idea why you're presenting this in the context
of my objection to the coupling of release-critical fixes to
release-irrelevant changes, since that's clearly not the case here, so
clearly isn't what I'm
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:56:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And you asked :
And if there are failures again with -15, can we expect a -16 soon that
fixes them *without* needing to add new packages?
Which was a request, not a complaint. My
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-01 23:10]:
Which was a request, not a complaint. My complaints come from Bastian's
response that no, he did not intend to focus -16 on getting 2.6.16 into
testing, regardless of what bugs showed up in -15.
Don't _all_ new kernel packages
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
For those playing along at home, routing around NEW processing isn't going
to happen;
Apparently for no good reason, since you simply state it as a fact without
providing evidence.
if you're introducing new packages regularly enough that NEW
processing delays are a
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:10:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:56:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
And you asked :
And if there are failures again with -15, can we expect a -16 soon that
fixes them *without*
also sprach Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.06.01.2334 +0200]:
The package name only contains 2.6.x, not the Debian -revision.
So 2.6.17 will require NEW processing, but a bug-fix release for
2.6.16 won't.
Small addition: unless the bug-fix requires an ABI change...
--
Please do not
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:10:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Don't _all_ new kernel packages require NEW processing because kernel
packages have the entire version string embedded in the package name
(for good and sound reasons)?
Kernel package
17 matches
Mail list logo
