Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > [experimental/gnome; experimental/libtool; experimental/kde; etc] > > > Now, aj, what do you feel about this, is this solution technically > >

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:43:23PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to experimental making 3.4 the default > > > definitely breaks gnome builds in experimental, if you get your build > > > dependencies from there. an experimental/toolchain would help in this > > >

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On 2004-05-18 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > (OK, so let's try out replying via the mailing-lists links. Sorry if > > this turns out bad) > > > > Matthias Klose writes: > > > > > hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to exp

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > Perhaps one can assume that all essential and build-essential packages > > should be from unstable, while the build-dependencies are taken from > > experimental? > > If that's the idea, why would you ever u

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > (OK, so let's try out replying via the mailing-lists links. Sorry if > this turns out bad) > > Matthias Klose writes: > > > hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to experimental making 3.4 the default > > definitely breaks gnome builds in

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

(OK, so let's try out replying via the mailing-lists links. Sorry if this turns out bad) Matthias Klose writes: > hmm, upload a new gcc-defaults to experimental making 3.4 the default > definitely breaks gnome builds in experimental, if you get your build > dependencies from there. an experimenta

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Anthony Towns writes: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > [experimental/gnome; experimental/libtool; experimental/kde; etc] > > > Now, aj, what do you feel about this, is this solution technically > > feasible without too much modification of the current scheme ? >

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:36:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: [experimental/gnome; experimental/libtool; experimental/kde; etc] > Now, aj, what do you feel about this, is this solution technically > feasible without too much modification of the current scheme ? I don't believe so; I've looked in

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:40:33AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:38:08PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:45:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:13:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > What about settin

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > When autobuilding the experimental distribution, I'd think one would > want to install packages from experimental (otherwise there wouldn't be > much point). Since experimental is explicitely for packages that are > expected to be broken, I suspect the number of uninstalla

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:51:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:55:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:17:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > Also, I don't see why y

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:55:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:17:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Also, I don't see why you would want to manually specify what stuff to > > > take from unstabl

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:17:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Also, I don't see why you would want to manually specify what stuff to > > take from unstable instead of experimental? Isn't build-depends meant > > for that? > > I

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:20:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > No, this may be not such a good idea after all. I don't think that a > maintainer who uploads something to the archives wouldn't want it to be > built if he had the choice, so most packages would be built anyway. > Giving people the

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > What about making experimental "chunks". > [...] > IMHO this could be fixed if we had experimental/gnome2.6 and > experimental/libtool, which are diferent subsets of experimental. This looks a bit like Progeny's components idea discussed

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of > > > implementing it. > > >

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:11:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This suggestion has been made before, but I'm not in favour of > > implementing it. > > That's fair. I'd only consider it appropriate if the experimental > builddi

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:04:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Uh, I want to get some work done, too. Debootstrap on my m68k box takes > a few *hours* :-) Fair point. > > Yeah; reducing this by offloading it to the package maintainer is a > > particularly good idea for experimental buildds (e

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:38:08PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:45:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:13:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > What about setting up a parallel autobuilder chain for experimental, > > > > Sure, that'd be grea

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 03:49:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:08:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Maintaining a buildd machine involves keeping a chroot environment > > relatively clean. > > Yup. Probably the best way of doing this is to debootstrap a new chroo

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:08:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Maintaining a buildd machine involves keeping a chroot environment > relatively clean. Yup. Probably the best way of doing this is to debootstrap a new chroot every day. One of the other tricks is that in some cases you probably

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Also, experimental is very likely to break, meaning, an experimental > > buildd will require a lot more maintenance than an unstable one (not a > > showstopper, but still an iss

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:45:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:13:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: >> > What about setting up a parallel autobuilder chain for experimental, >> Sure, that'd be great. > Although not easy. I'm n

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:45:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:13:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > What about setting up a parallel autobuilder chain for experimental, > > Sure, that'd be great. Although not easy. I'm not sure about this (haven't done any experiment

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 04:13:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > What about setting up a parallel autobuilder chain for experimental, Sure, that'd be great. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mai

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:37:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > > > At the moment, afaics, packages have only been uploaded to experimental > > > for i386 and powerpc. Please make sure they're building on all > > > architec

RE: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 15:14, Bradley Bell wrote: > > Also, glib is stalled because parts of it got in before a > > dropped connection, now I can't restart the upload because > > the files there prevent me from creating new files in a new > > upload. Any ideas, or should I just wait a day or two

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Also, glib is stalled because parts of it got in before a dropped > connection, now I can't restart the upload because the files there > prevent me from creating new files in a new upload. Any ideas, or > should I just wait a day or two until the incomplete stuff vanishes

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:16:51PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Also, glib is stalled because parts of it got in before a dropped > connection, now I can't restart the upload because the files there > prevent me from creating new files in a new upload. Any ideas, or > should I just wait a day

RE: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

> Also, glib is stalled because parts of it got in before a > dropped connection, now I can't restart the upload because > the files there prevent me from creating new files in a new > upload. Any ideas, or should I just wait a day or two until > the incomplete stuff vanishes? upload the .ch

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 14:09, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 19:15, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been worki

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:24:54PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: > > At the moment, afaics, packages have only been uploaded to experimental > > for i386 and powerpc. Please make sure they're building on all > > architectures before even considering a major change like this. > Sorry, but

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 19:15, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > > > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Steve Langasek wrote: > As long as the upload to unstable is clean, we can make a final decision on > GNOME 2.6's inclusion closer to the freeze. I find this answer quite acceptable and rather wise indeed: pointless to declare that package X won't go in when we clearly have n

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Martin-Éric Racine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040418 20:10]: > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Please take into account that there is no way we would update an entire > > > GNOME system in such an update. The updates are only meant to suc

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > Anthony and Colin may have other concerns; I'll let them speak for > > themselves. For my own part, if you can address the above, I don't see > > any reason why GNOME 2.6 can't be allowed into unstable. > Aren't you guys in freez

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

* Martin-Éric Racine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040418 20:10]: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Please take into account that there is no way we would update an entire > > GNOME system in such an update. The updates are only meant to suck up > > all those security patches, fix a few very

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > James Curbo wrote: > > > >Does Debian do "point" releases? > > > > > > Yes, and as a matter of fact a new revision of woody is about to come > > > out. (3.0r3) > > > > Please take into account that there is no way we w

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > James Curbo wrote: > > > >Does Debian do "point" releases? > > > > > > Yes, and as a matter of fact a new revision of woody is about to come > > > out. (3.0r3) > > > > Please t

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > James Curbo wrote: > > >Does Debian do "point" releases? > > > > Yes, and as a matter of fact a new revision of woody is about to come > > out. (3.0r3) > > Please take into account that there is no way we would update an entire > GNOME system in such

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:15:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > > > GNOME 2.6 during the last

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

James Curbo wrote: > >Does Debian do "point" releases? > > Yes, and as a matter of fact a new revision of woody is about to come > out. (3.0r3) Please take into account that there is no way we would update an entire GNOME system in such an update. The updates are only meant to suck up all those

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On 2004-04-18 Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i've been upgrading to gnome 2.6 from experimental for some time, and i > must say i'm quite impressed: it just works for me and i like it much. > There are two things i see (from a user and -dev-user point of view) we > _really_ need to do

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0700, William Ballard wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 01:14:40AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > No. For sarge+1. Debian point releases are different. > > Well, I think you should consider changing that policy, called it "Sarge > Second Edition" or something,

Re: Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Hello AJ, hello List, i've been upgrading to gnome 2.6 from experimental for some time, and i must say i'm quite impressed: it just works for me and i like it much. There are two things i see (from a user and -dev-user point of view) we _really_ need to do before sarge, or it will annoy us for a

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:15:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > > > GNOME 2.6 during the last

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 01:14:40AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > No. For sarge+1. Debian point releases are different. Well, I think you should consider changing that policy, called it "Sarge Second Edition" or something, unless you want to doom sarge from the start as "stable but old as dirt"

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 11:57:14AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having > > them ready to opt fo

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

> Aren't you guys in freeze? I think the right thing to do would be to suck > up the damage and ship GNOME 2.4 in Sarge. Sure, that is not as cool and > shiny, but being open to massive changes at this stage of the release > cycle sounds like a recipe for disaster. Of course, all of this was sai

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Ar 17/04/2004 am 15:14, ysgrifennodd William Ballard: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > I'm not sure the question of shipping GNOME 2.6 in sarge has anything to do > > with GNOME or the Debian packages of it at all, really... It is more about > > when sarge is going

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 William Ballard wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > I'm not sure the question of shipping GNOME 2.6 in sarge has anything to do > > with GNOME or the Debian packages of it at all, really... It is more about > > when

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > * 2.4 is known to be good in testing > > The FAM bug exists in 2.4 and is quite awful. Can render floppies > ununmountable. Corrected in 2.6, apparently. > > My 2 cents Are you trying to say that a localised bug such as this i

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

William Ballard wrote: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: I'm not sure the question of shipping GNOME 2.6 in sarge has anything to do with GNOME or the Debian packages of it at all, really... It is more about when sarge is going to ship, and the kinds of risks Debian's

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > * 2.4 is known to be good in testing The FAM bug exists in 2.4 and is quite awful. Can render floppies ununmountable. Corrected in 2.6, apparently. My 2 cents

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we are, one of my requirements is that the GNOME team identify to us the > minimum set of GNOME 2.6 source packages they want to release with for > this effort to be worthwhile, and then ensure that the package > relationships be updated to reflect this

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 08:09:54AM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > I'm not sure the question of shipping GNOME 2.6 in sarge has anything to do > with GNOME or the Debian packages of it at all, really... It is more about > when sarge is going to ship, and the kinds of risks Debian's willing to take > in

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

> Anthony and Colin may have other concerns; I'll let them speak for > themselves. For my own part, if you can address the above, I don't see > any reason why GNOME 2.6 can't be allowed into unstable. Aren't you guys in freeze? I think the right thing to do would be to suck up the damage and sh

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Le sam 17/04/2004 à 23:31, Dafydd Harries a écrit : > In terms of applications, GTK+ 2.4 should be 100% backwards-compatible > with GTK+ 2.2 and, for that matter, GTK+ 2.0. GNOME has promised that > APIs and ABIs will not change during major verions (the major version in > question being 2). If th

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Ar 17/04/2004 am 11:57, ysgrifennodd Steve Langasek: > I would also like to see some analysis of how GNOME 2.6 in unstable will > affect other non-GNOME packages. For instance, if GNOME 2.6 requires a > new version of GTK+ as well, will this require a transition for other > GTK+-using packages? I

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:10:00AM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having > them ready to opt for their inclussion in Sarge when we started, the > situation has changed

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! Hi! > As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging > GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having > them ready to opt for their inclussion in Sarge when we started, the > situation has changed now tha