[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Fwd: Re: GTK+2.0 2.6.2-3 and buildds running out of space]

First let me say that I mean no offense to the debian community, or any
of the people in the forwarded message. I'm frustrated and I want to see
things improve...

Now, can someone please tell me how messages like the one below, and
others, aren't indicative that debian should drop s390, mipsel, and
maybe hppa from the list of architectures? How about we release for
i386, sparc, and powerpc, and let the others release on their own
schedule? This business of supporting 11 architectures and making sure
they're all 100% right before releasing is just about the worst idea

ARGH is all I can say. As a once die-hard debian fan, I'm ashamed to be
associated with it now. The once great, but now slow, lumbering beast
will never be what it could have been if things continue like this.

Please somebody convince me that I'm wrong.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Aurélien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: GTK+2.0 2.6.2-3 and buildds running out of space
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:57:18 -0800
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 05:49:24PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> GTK+2.0 version 2.6.2 has been recently uploaded and it seems to fail to 
> build on some buildds because they ran out of space. Currently it is the 
> case of sparc, arm and s390 buildds.

> It seems that this is preventing a lot of packages to go to Sarge (even 
> if the package is only 2 days old), including gftp for which a security 
> alert has just been announced (DSA 686-1). That's mean we definitively 
> need to have this new version of GTK+2.0 in Sarge.

> I don't know if the problem with the buildds has been addressed or not, 
> but if need, I can build GTK+2.0 on a sparc machine into a fresh Sid 
> chroot. Please tell me if you find it could be useful.

Since any security updates for sarge will most certainly be built on the
buildds, we do need to ensure that our buildds can actually handle such a
package.  Do you know how much build space might be saved by disabling the
testsuite for static libs on all architectures, instead of just on the

Clint Byrum <cbyrum@spamaps.org>

Reply to: