> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.
As I keep getting mails saying that this is "a good one", I need to
send this disclaimer:
Despite the date, this project is definitely *not* a joke. I'm really
sorry that April 1st is a Sunday, the day where I have time
On Sunday 01 April 2007 23:19, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe
> > that's what you were thinking about.
>
> AFAIK, they are.
Policy URLs are not accepted, that's what I was thi
> What about putting standardisation of descriptions and package names in
> these, too ?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/02/msg00125.html
Descriptions is part of the game but we might need people with ideas
in that area to join in.
For package names, I'm unsure: this has technica
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 07:37:47PM +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.
>
> Project presentation
>
> This work is intended to continue all through the etch->lenny release
> cycle and be
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> For the rare case of a Xen instance with multiple
Russell> Ethernet devices it would be easy to modify the config
Russell> file in question - which is actually an easier task than
Russell> determining how to corr
Scribit Steve Langasek dies 01/04/2007 hora 13:09:
> Hrm, is there really an RFC that specifies encryption before signing?
AFAIK, the RFC specifies how to build an encrypted MIME body and a
signed body. When you want both, you can either store a signed body in
the encrypted one, or an encrypted an
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe that's
> what you were thinking about.
AFAIK, they are.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:04:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the messa
Hi
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:04:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the most creative and weird action I have seen in the
> last few elections.
>
> You send an encrypted mail, which was not itself signed. This
> caused the vote to be rejected. Now, the b
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was not
>> signed; which means there is no information about who is sen
Hello
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:15:40 +0200
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> > seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signat
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature
> won't verify, because I deleted the votes):
You had your message signed, then put the sign
Hello
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was
> not signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
> the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll po
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: brouette
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Sébastien Tricaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.wallinfire.net/brouette/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Descr
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 10:24:26AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I disagree. Not only because the bug is not RC, but because you could say
> > the same for users running other virtualization technologies (UML? Vmware?)
> > with similar behaviours.
>
> Do they behave in the same way?
Well, not t
Hi,
On Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:06 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ah, thanks. Pretty obvious in retrospect.
>
> > For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> > but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@list
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Winnertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: liblatex-tom-perl
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/~schubiger/LaTeX-TOM-0.6/lib/LaTeX/TOM.pm
* License
* Andreas Barth:
> For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah, thanks. Pretty obvious in retrospect.
> For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@lists.debian.org).
Mail after approval is good enough for my purposes, thanks.
--
T
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?
debian-testing-changes will show upload to TPU, such as xmms
1:1.2.10+20061101-1etch1
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070401 11:00]:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?
For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only s
Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
testing-propposed-updates?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21 matches
Mail list logo
