On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:04:26AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Um, the only archs that don't meet the redundancy requirement today are
i386
and ia64.
http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html says alpha,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:56AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:04:26AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Um, the only archs that don't meet the redundancy requirement today
are i386
and
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:25:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has
been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do
not meet the
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 03:04:10PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
(BTW, I've recently offered a better sparc machine for use by the project,
it's a prospective solution for that problem.)
See this list some time ago. Debian have a Sun T2000 available.
Bastian
--
Love sometimes expresses itself in
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 04:03:59PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
See this list some time ago. Debian have a Sun T2000 available.
Oh yeah, I noticed, but it also sounds like we're not really using it.
That needs to be fixed. Besides, redundancy is good, esp. given that
vore is down.
--
2.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Um, the only archs that don't meet the redundancy requirement today are
i386
and ia64.
http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html says alpha, amd64, arm,
hppa, i386, ia64, and m68k don't meet it, fwiw.
Oops.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:55:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has
been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
hardware and add it to the set of
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:25:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:55:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has
been suggested multiple times in
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:24:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386
and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons,
two for kfreebsd-i386
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has
been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately forgetting? It has
been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new
hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do
not meet the redundancy
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_
years
Hi Anthony!
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2007-02-15 09:37]:
Not every criticism is an insult, and if you want to know why things
don't happen you need to be able to take criticism without taking insult.
To some readers of your last mail
In general, I could pretty easily imagine
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations
across multiple lists?
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations
across multiple lists?
i think
Anthony Towns a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386
and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons,
two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we
have buildd
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:25AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_
years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as
nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned
technical
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:27:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The right way of dealing with that is to work with the potential
contributor to ensure they understand the issues that're involved so
that their future contributions can be accepted and will be useful.
This is a very important
Le vendredi 16 février 2007 à 01:27 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
(If there's something more than the general comments Frank made,
I'm still not seeing it. TTBOMK, the non-free and experimental builds
aren't at all integrated with the buildd.d.o stuff, and there's been
no particular interest
[moving this to a more appropriate list]
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:12:31PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:33:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Feb
Hi,
Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's:
- making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised
- keeping the chroot up to date
- keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes
- keeping in sync with the infrastructure upstream (building from
incoming,
-vote dropped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's:
- making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised
- keeping the chroot up to date
- keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_
years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as
Hi,
On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
-vote dropped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's:
- making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised
- keeping the
25 matches
Mail list logo
