On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 04:14:30PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's also worth pointing out that the effort that some people see as
> > being wasted on other ports actually benefits the distribution as a
> > whole in the long run. For example, somebody
Brian Nelson wrote:
> Well, I'm not a dev and I could be wrong, but I seem to remember lots
> and lots of RC bugs a few months ago were due to packages failing to
> build on hppa. Looking at the old RC bug reports, this appears to be
> true. Since all of those bugs had to be fixed, I can only ass
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 09:57:45PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's a rather odd presumption. Do you real debian-devel-announce? You
> > can find out exactly what kept debian from releasing on any given month.
> > Hint: You won't find any desperate calls
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Presumably, woody's release has been delayed for months due to
>> problems with hppa while devs tried to find access to an hppa machine
>> for testing.
>
> That's a rather odd presumption. Do you real debian-devel-announce? You
> can f
My two comments on this thread:
1. The lack of an official release doesn't seem to have kept users from using
Woody. An actual "Official Release" is a nice way to keep the organization
organized, and is therefore good. But Debian is such an open organization
that i386 users who are impatient, are
Brian Nelson wrote:
> Presumably, woody's release has been delayed for months due to
> problems with hppa while devs tried to find access to an hppa machine
> for testing.
That's a rather odd presumption. Do you real debian-devel-announce? You
can find out exactly what kept debian from releasing o
On Friday 31 May 2002 03:27 pm, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Fundamentally, Debian is committed to being a multi-architecture system
> > for as long as porters are willing to support it. The Project Leader
> > posted to debian-devel-announce about
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's also worth pointing out that the effort that some people see as
> being wasted on other ports actually benefits the distribution as a
> whole in the long run. For example, somebody complained a while back
> about the number of bugs filed because pack
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Fundamentally, Debian is committed to being a multi-architecture system
> for as long as porters are willing to support it. The Project Leader
> posted to debian-devel-announce about porting a couple of weeks ago, and
> summed up the issues quite n
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 12:06:48PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. I've had to do the odd security update of my own packages in the
> > past, and I had to build packages for every architecture by hand.
> > Finding Debian-administered machines of the ri
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 12:12:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:53, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > > Isn't the issue regarding "a better way to do security releases"
>> >
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 12:12:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:53, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Isn't the issue regarding "a better way to do security releases"
> > > one of the big reasons why v3.0 hasn't been r
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:53, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:05, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:41:40AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> > > > So, is it time to add a Security source to my /etc/apt/sources.lis
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:05, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:41:40AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> > > So, is it time to add a Security source to my /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > for Woody?
> >
> > There is none yet.
>
> Isn't
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:05, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:41:40AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> > Colin Watson, 2002-May-30 10:30 +0100:
> > > The woody distribution has been frozen since 1 May. The only things
> > > you'll see in it before (and after) release now are security updates,
>
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:41:40AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> Colin Watson, 2002-May-30 10:30 +0100:
> > The woody distribution has been frozen since 1 May. The only things
> > you'll see in it before (and after) release now are security updates,
> > and perhaps the odd other upgrade that the release man
Colin Watson, 2002-May-30 10:30 +0100:
>
> The woody distribution has been frozen since 1 May. The only things
> you'll see in it before (and after) release now are security updates,
> and perhaps the odd other upgrade that the release manager considers
> critical.
So, is it time to add a Securit
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 04:30, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 04:09:57AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 03:57, Colin Watson wrote:
[snip]
> The woody distribution has been frozen since 1 May. The only things
> you'll see in it before (and after) release now are sec
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 04:09:57AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 03:57, Colin Watson wrote:
> > The "not upgraded" isn't a total over all packages; it refers to
> > packages where apt knows about a newer version but isn't upgrading it
> > for other reasons. For example, I have k
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 03:57, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:16:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Why does "apt-get -u -d upgrade" suddenly say "and 0 not upgraded"?
> > It should say "886 not upgraded". (It worked ~1 week ago, when last
> > I refreshed my machine.)
>
> The "no
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:16:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Why does "apt-get -u -d upgrade" suddenly say "and 0 not upgraded"?
> It should say "886 not upgraded". (It worked ~1 week ago, when last
> I refreshed my machine.)
The "not upgraded" isn't a total over all packages; it refers to
pac
Hi, all.
Why does "apt-get -u -d upgrade" suddenly say "and 0 not upgraded"?
It should say "886 not upgraded". (It worked ~1 week ago, when last
I refreshed my machine.)
TIA,
Ron
# apt-get update && apt-get -u -d upgrade
Get:1 http://non-us.debian.org woody/non-US/main Packages [47.6kB]
Get:2
22 matches
Mail list logo
