On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 15:10 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you can't think of anything useful to do,
> you might like to look at http://ftp-master.debian.org/unmet-deps/ for
> a bunch of ftp-masterish problems that no one else is looking at much
> these days.
Might be a dumb question, but isn't
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Note to other readers of this thread. I get complaints that i post too much,
> and indeed it can be argued that i represent 50% of this thread, and that i
> already made many replies, but what should i have done ? [...]
Learnt to write concisely and combine replie
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:28:16AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Election promises are not worth the hot air they're not printed on.
>
> This is an extremely cynical viewpoint that essentially excuses lying to get
> elected. If you can't go by the promises and sta
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-02 11:24]:
> So, you believe the kernel package, as well as all the out-of-tree modules
> which need to be intimely related, and will probably all need NEW together,
> are just 'pet packages' ?
Strip the "just" and you have the impression I get from yo
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 06:05:06PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:47:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > How much longer do you want to continue this idiotic one-up-manship
> > before you're willing to try a different approach of working with people?
> Please assume the
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:47:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> How much longer do you want to continue this idiotic one-up-manship
> before you're willing to try a different approach of working with people?
Hello Anthony,
Please assume the DPL asked you that exact same question.
What would you
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:47:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> -kernel dropped, we've wasted their time enough on this.
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, because people are angry with me because of my email communication
> > methods, any of my arguments sho
-kernel dropped, we've wasted their time enough on this.
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, because people are angry with me because of my email communication
> methods, any of my arguments should be dismissed without thought as you did ?
> You do notice that this l
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:28:16AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> 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,
>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 02:16:46PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> Furthermore, I know I've spoken with a number of developers who don't
> >> think you can be relied upon to handle
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > No, i got _NO_ANSWER_,
>
> Actually, you did get an answer. You didn't like it, which is fine, but
> that doesn't mean it's not an answer.
Let me read it again :
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:33:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> No, i got _NO_ANSWER_,
Actually, you did get an answer. You didn't like it, which is fine, but
that doesn't mean it's not an answer.
Please stop whining, it's not going to get you anywhere (except that it
will ensure you'll be further
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Furthermore, I know I've spoken with a number of developers who don't
>> think you can be relied upon to handle things "reasonably", so even if
> Yeah, and i would much like that you back suc
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points
> > > > which
> > > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a
> > >
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points
> > > which
> > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request
> > > for
> > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subjec
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:00:23AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-02 08:27]:
>
> > I personally volunteer for this for doing kernel related NEW work, but i
> > guess
> > someone else can be found if you don't judge me dign of confiance.
>
> Right, let
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-02 08:27]:
> I personally volunteer for this for doing kernel related NEW work, but i guess
> someone else can be found if you don't judge me dign of confiance.
Right, let's have everyone volunteer to process NEW for his pet
package...
Martin
--
<[EM
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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 str
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:06:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters
> to decide. As both DPL and ftpmaster, I think we could use some new
> assistants -- Mike and Randall are pretty much doing other things these
> days, and Jeroen an
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:06:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:15:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Maybe, or maybe not, but you cannot deny that the actual NEW situation is
> > satisfactory.
>
> Heh.
>
> > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where th
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:15:35PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Maybe, or maybe not, but you cannot deny that the actual NEW situation is
> satisfactory.
Heh.
> And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which
> made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal,
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
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
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 *w
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
* 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 packa
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 complain
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
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 th
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 cont
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:27:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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 l
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 o
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
> > > fo
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 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,
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 this up every chance you get, please stop it. You're not
interested in
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 03:10:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:47:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think this issue is enough to revoke ftp-master's
> > right to choose their staff among themselves, but rather push more
> > people onto their team
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:47:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Personally, I don't think this issue is enough to revoke ftp-master's
> right to choose their staff among themselves, but rather push more
> people onto their team without their consent.
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any v
People, please move this thread over to -project
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:13:37AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:04:29AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >> [Benjamin Seidenberg]
> >> > FYI:
> >> > 12:33 < Ganneff> an
Your mail is not about general development of the Debian distribution
and thus rather on topic on debian-project, please follow-up there.
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 08:27:26PM +0200, Hans Kroegle wrote:
>It seems that the ftp-masters haven't looked at the NEW queue
> during the last month (or may
40 matches
Mail list logo
