Le ven 08/08/2003 à 13:48, Sven Luther a écrit : > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:20:36PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > <quote who="Sven Luther"> > > > > > What you need official woody backports, and that is something i think > > > would be good to have, but i am not the one to decide about that, and i am > > > not sure our current infrastructure can handle it. It is ready for it, but > > > if you consider the considerable amount of network space and bandwith as > > > well as the load on the autobuilders, i am not sure it would be > > > realsitically doable. > > > > > > Also, such a project would be better discussed in a post sarge release > > > timeframe, in order not to delay the sarge release further than is > > > necessary. > > > > On the other hand, it can be done completely independently of Debian > > manpower and serverpower, by non-maintainers (cooperating with official > > Debian maintainers) who are interested in working with fresh GNOME Desktop > > packages on woody for fun or for work. > > But it needs official endorsement, if not, then it will be no different > than the thousand or so savage backports that exists around the net. The "savage backports" as you call them are sometimes doing great things. Some of them are even trying to respect basic Debian policy and common sense... the current GNOME 2.2 backport by James Strandboge is one of those. > > I'm sure the network of GNOME mirrors would not mind mirroring fresh woody > > Debian binaries (I'm one of GNOME's ftp master admins, btw, so this > > shouldn't be a horrific challenge). > > Two things though, this will be a x86 only repository i guess, and you > would not have access to all the debian autobuilders for different > architectures, right ? If you provide us with a system (buildd?) which makes it relatively easy to maintain PPC too, I'll all I can to provide it too. :-) > And second, would this be for gnome packages only, or a generalised > backport repository ? In particular, how would you react to having KDE > backported packages there ? For me, it would be GNOME-only (with dependencies). For other things please see the crappy, ugly, non-official backports available out there. ;-) If some people is ready to do the same for KDE, please do, if we can work together, I'll always be open-minded and try to make both work as good as possible. > > Give me a couple of weeks. I need to set up an autobuilder for unrelated > > work stuff, so I will use that experience to build one for us, to support > > the existing woody backports. > > > > Once that is complete, I will attempt to gather hardware/bandwidth donations > > from GNOME Foundation sponsors. > > > > The official Debian maintainers won't have to do anything beyond responding > > to dependency-related wishlist bugreports, so that *hopefully*, our woody > > backports will not require much human intervention at all. > > Yep, that would be nice, but in practice, many packages have problem > building in woody, due to dependencies. Not so much, I can assure you. Did you already take a look at current GNOME 2.2 backport cited hereup? > > Handy, huh? :-) > > Yep, but i am not sure it responds to the real need, it will just be one > more unofficial backport repository, altough probably a better > maintained than other one. It is not a real need. The real need is for a killing Sarge release ASAP. But hey, keep your feets on Earth (I suspect this is not good English, but Sven would understand anyway ;-))... > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther > > > > - Jeff > > > > -- > > linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/ > > > > "I think we agnostics need a term for a holy war too. I feel all left > > out." - George Lebl -- Jérôme Warnier <jwarnier@beeznest.net> BeezNest s.à r.l.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=