On 29/06/12 12:04, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>
> If you have other specific targets, let me know. There are 359 failures
> currently and I will requeue them progressively.
>
Don't know if aptitude will work.
Also, mdadm would be nice. It works locally if I blacklist experimental
series / broken pa
Breaking news on the topic below ;)
> Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 01:54 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> It's unclear to me that we are *known* as a primary consumer.
>>
>> It's clear that we need fixes faster. Being able to report better bugs
>> should help
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs writes:
> FYI.
> Stephane is highly experienced with LXC and does a lot of work with it.
> On 06/15/2012 04:43 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> Dear Stephane,
>>
>> Can you comment about running quantal LXC container on Lucid host?
>> It would he
tainer on top of that.
This way you get the "supported" LXC stack, with apparmor and a working
quantal template.
Stéphane
> ---- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Upgrading pristine-xz on jubany
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:32:59 +0200
> From: Vincent Ladeui
Some good news after my tests Friday and this week-end:
> Vincent Ladeuil writes:
> - I got in touch with xz maintainers and a fix is on its way there
> (many thanks to Lasse Collin for its invaluable help here). This
> will require an additional fix to pristine-xz which I will
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:32:59 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
> > Barry Warsaw writes:
>
> > On Jun 14, 2012, at 05:21 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> >> - I'm already running successful tests inside a quantal lxc container
> :)
>
> > It has become for many of us not just a nice-to-
> Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 05:21 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> - I'm already running successful tests inside a quantal lxc container :)
> It has become for many of us not just a nice-to-have but a
> must-have for Ubuntu development.
That's my understanding
On Jun 14, 2012, at 05:21 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>- I'm already running successful tests inside a quantal lxc container :)
Thanks for anything and everything you do for UDD. It has become for many of
us not just a nice-to-have but a must-have for Ubuntu development.
-Barry
signature.asc
D
> Barry Warsaw writes:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 01:54 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> It's unclear to me that we are *known* as a primary consumer.
>>
>> It's clear that we need fixes faster. Being able to report better bugs
>> should helps us getting there and also make us kn
On Jun 13, 2012, at 05:25 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>I heavily rely on package-import. It's no longer 'a demo' but really the only
>way I develop for ubuntu or debian (to have a nice debdiff).
Here, here.
-Barry
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.co
On 13/06/12 16:48, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 01:54 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>
>> It's unclear to me that we are *known* as a primary consumer.
>>
>> It's clear that we need fixes faster. Being able to report better bugs
>> should helps us getting there and also make us known as a
On Jun 11, 2012, at 01:54 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>It's unclear to me that we are *known* as a primary consumer.
>
>It's clear that we need fixes faster. Being able to report better bugs
>should helps us getting there and also make us known as a primary
>consumer.
>
>> And it provides bette
> Max Bowsher <_...@maxb.eu> writes:
> Right, I agree we should use stuff straight from Ubuntu when we
> can, but I don't agree that it's necessarily wrong to customize
> our deployment practices to get fixes faster.
Good, I'm glad we agree on the 'get fixes faster' value.
On 07/06/12 09:15, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> Max Bowsher <_...@maxb.eu> writes:
> > An LXC just for this feels like an overengineered solution to me.
>
> Maintaining a single lxc container config file is less work than
> backporting a growing number of packages.
>
> It has the benefit of
> Max Bowsher <_...@maxb.eu> writes:
> On 06/06/12 13:43, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> We're trying to work with webops to get Jubany at least upgraded from
>> Lucid to Precise,
> Great, what's the estimated timeline for that?
Unknown.
>> and then follow it up with somet
On 06/06/12 13:43, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> We're trying to work with webops to get Jubany at least upgraded from
> Lucid to Precise,
Great, what's the estimated timeline for that?
> and then follow it up with something beyond that.
> We're considering trying to get an LXC running Q, or maybe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/6/2012 2:29 PM, Max Bowsher wrote:
> There are currently more than 300 packages failing to import due
> to pristine-tar failures, mainly in the pristine-xz step.
>
> I tried one, automake1.11, locally on precise, and pristine-xz
> succeeded.
>
>
There are currently more than 300 packages failing to import due to
pristine-tar failures, mainly in the pristine-xz step.
I tried one, automake1.11, locally on precise, and pristine-xz succeeded.
Consequently, I would like to upgrade pristine-xz on jubany.
We could do this as a backported packa
18 matches
Mail list logo
