On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:38:42PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:41PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The context doesn't make the above quote any more pleasant.
Well, in an ideal world everybody trusts
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:51AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware
and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust
would be a minimum.
There are different levels of trusting. One can think that
Le lundi 12 février 2007 à 19:35 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
There are different levels of trusting. One can think that no DD
would introduce malware in the archive and anyway could think also that
some
developers are not good for certain tasks because of attitude/lack of
Hello,
if you follow -project, you know that I have the project to present myself
for the DPL election this year provided that I can setup a good DPL board.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00061.html
I have privately contacted some people that I would like to see on such a
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Could be at the request of the Project, via a GR I think, if the DPL
was, say, unwilling to act and fix a broken situation wrt
infrastructure administration and developer access to the said
infrastructure.
Unlikely. SPI
It was a mail to -devel, and I mispoke, it was aranym, not qemu,
;-) ok - getting closer to the true story here, but unfortunately I
could not locate any 'failed build' email in the -devel from him within
any reasonable timeframe where he would mentioned failed build. But I've
found
This one time, at band camp, Yaroslav Halchenko said:
It was a mail to -devel, and I mispoke, it was aranym, not qemu,
;-) ok - getting closer to the true story here, but unfortunately I
could not locate any 'failed build' email in the -devel from him within
any reasonable timeframe where he
On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote:
[...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the
binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it
may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exited 0 with
a wrongly built binary.
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote:
[...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the
binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it
may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exited 0
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:20:12 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The discussion is either it is as reliable to use emulator (QEMU in
particular) as the real box. You brought an example where build
process under emulator failed. I mentioned that it might be not
emulator false
The greater question is, if the archive masters request
developers not to submit packages built on emulated hardware, should
that request not be heeded?
No, why would that be within the bailiwick of the ftp-team? If you're
going to claim that they have ultimate authority over all
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:35:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:51AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
Considering any DD has the ability to introduce any kind of malware
and/or kill (almost) any debian.org server, yes, a little bit of trust
would be a
[Please respond back to -vote where this belongs, not here.]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
Right now, those who run auto-builders are trusted, but the GR
proposes to trust all developers. Right?
It doesn't really change anything because nothing stops you as a
developer from uploading
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:58:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? AIUI, the DPL
is appointed as an adviser to SPI's board, not a veto.
Further down the resolution, which you snipped:
snip
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem
he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected,
but is the original problem being addressed?
] I am really upset by the way the ARM
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:18:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem
he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected,
but is the original
16 matches
Mail list logo
