> Le Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:35:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >
> > The interface definition behind this is:
>
> That ‘make -f debian/rules’ is not present anywhere in the Policy demonstrates
> it is not the interface.
>
[...]
For the sake of completeness: Policy states that
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:01:20PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> First of all, why do you want to split moodle? there's for example phpbb3
> which uses dbconfig and allows multiple different DBMS as backends.
Fair question. There's also quite a few packages that depend on
dbconfig-common
these profile which kids who is missing, kindly forward to others
for help these kids and presnts
usha
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kids Missing
Date: Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Subject: [Kids Missing:/] Kids Missing Alert - 01 November 2009
To: kidsmiss...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: fvwm
> Version: 1:2.5.28.ds-2
> Severity: important
> User: d...@debian.org
> Usertags: readline6
>
> Sent to http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/09/msg00549.html
> As a package maintainer you got this email directly as well.
Fin
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:29:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Also, note that the ftp team are at least project delegates, whereas the
> Lintian maintainers are "just" package maintainers. If we have a
> governance problem with the ftp team making this decision, it would be
> even worse if the L
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:56:13PM +, Rafal Czlonka wrote:
> Hi All,
> I've stumbled upon over a year old bug #440436.
> All the bugs that have been blocking this bug report have now been
> resolved and the package in question has been removed from Debian.
> I don't know of any reason why this
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> who spent over 30 hours checking for and filing 219 bugs against packages
> which violate policy, and is getting somewhat irritated by all the
> kvetching
Thank you for doing this. I've looked at doing it from time to time based
on Lintian results and always shied
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
>> > issues to the top of their todo list?
>>
>> Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken
Steve Langasek writes:
> - it provides a hint to the ftp team about the section it might belong in
> - it gives us a way to see when the ftp team and the maintainer disagree
>about the correct section (reminder mails to the maintainer on override
>mismatch)
> - it gives users useful in
Faidon Liambotis writes:
> lintian already categorizes the bugs into “errors” and “warnings”. I'd
> personally prefer it if the ftp-master team didn't choose to hand-pick
> lintian tags themselves but trusted lintian and its maintainers.
> Possibly also by filling bugs to lintian or policy as app
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
>> arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
>> serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
>
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>
>> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
>> somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've
>> marked as rejects are pretty obvious a
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
> > issues to the top of their todo list?
>
> Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken by folks
> in charge of the archive as to what b
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:11PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > (N.B.: this check would fail even in the case of a package with a
> > pre-existing section override in the archive. What's the sense of
> > that?
> > Let the maintainer get the nag mail after the fact telling them to
> > reconcil
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
> arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
> serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
> I do think that the ftp team decides wha
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> >> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gd
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay
>> > the
>> > release!
>
>> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
>
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>
>> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
>
> So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has
If there are a l
Steve Langasek wrote:
> And I objected before when this was first proposed that the ftp team should
> not be auto-rejecting from the archive for any issues that are not
> violations of Policy "must" requirements.
>
> The right process is: discuss; reach a consensus; amend Policy; enforce
> Policy
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
> what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
> the maximum a
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
>> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
>
> I have seen him assert in a bug on one package
Penny Leach wrote:
[...]
>
> I think the best way to handle this, is stop having a moodle package at
> all, but instead have a moodle-common package, that depends on either
> moodle-mysql and moodle-pgsql. These two obviously depend on
> moodle-common, and conflict with each other, and all three
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
> somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've marked
> as rejects are pretty obvious and easy-to-fix bugs, and I'm not sure why
> the pr
On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
Hello,
I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
{linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 15:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Seems to me like there's no point in asking the ftpmasters to come
> up with
> > the source package section name because the package author didn't
> notice
> > and set one before the first upload. Although I do agree that if
> we're
>
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:09:56PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> > N:
> > N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
> > N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
> > N: because other IDs are dyna
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
>> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
> I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed t
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
> > I don't thin
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
> > release!
> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:50:19AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And yet, some FHS violations just seem to be treated as important (#523920),
> while others are more than serious (not being able to upload with some FHS
> violations, which IMO have less consequences...)
Bug #523920 is not an FHS
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed to that
the package has been "d
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
> > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> > Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
> > ranges; it prohibits relying on user or
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has been
shown in the previous release cycles that putting this in the frame of
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
>
> These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
> be built on i386 and amd64 pl
Hi,
On Sonntag, 1. November 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's a very positive step forward for the archive as a
> whole to start doing auto-rejects for some major Lintian tags,
I only agree partially. IMO auto-rejects for _introducing_ certain lintian
tags (in sid/exp) is right as it is
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> On behalf of the other four Policy maintainers who aren't Manoj and who
>> so far as I know you don't have personal conflicts with, let me just
>> say "gee, thanks." This is how we can ensure that Policy co
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luk Claes writes:
> > As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> > the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
> > continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and
Hello,
I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
{linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
be built on i386 and amd64 platforms (maybe ppc could be added)
In order to avoid code duplica
Luk Claes writes:
> As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> the way he can use them at the moment he needs them.
Even if that were true, it's foolish to think this is a trait specific
to one person. Everyone does this to some degree, and smearing one
person rather
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector
* Package name: gdb-armel
Version : 7.0
Upstream Author : many authors
* URL : http://sourceware.org/gdb
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : The GNU Debugger (for cross-compiling)
GDB is a s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector Oron
* Package name: gcc-4.3-armel
Version : 4.3
Upstream Author : many authors
* URL : http://gcc.gnu.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : The GNU C compiler (for cross-compiling)
This
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector
* Package name: gcc-4.4-armel
Version : 4.4
Upstream Author : many authors
* URL : http://gcc.gnu.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : The GNU C compiler (for cross-compiling)
The GNU Co
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector Oron
* Package name: eglibc-armel
Version : 2.10
Upstream Author : many authors
* URL : http://www.eglibc.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : GNU C Library: Shared libraries (for cross-c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector
* Package name: binutils-armel
Version : 2.20
Upstream Author : many people
* URL : http://sourceware.org/binutils
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: C
Description : The GNU binary utilities, for arm-linu
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:10:44PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > In general you cannot rely on checking errno because it is not defined
> > whether a successful operation clears it.
>
> But you can clear it by hand before calling them.
That's only true in some special cases; for example, SuS
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hector
* Package name: linux-armel
Version : 2.6.30
Upstream Author : many individuals
* URL : http://kernel.org/
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: C
Description : Linux support headers for userspace developmen
Luk Claes writes:
> As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
> continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and RC bug
> policy consistent and the Debian Policy will remain not usef
Steve Langasek writes:
> Some problems I find with this list:
> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> N:
> N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
> N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
> N: because other IDs are dynamica
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Angel Abad
* Package name: Blazeblogger
Version : 1.0.p
Upstream Author : Jaromir Hradilek
* URL : http://blaze.blackened.cz/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : simple to use but capable CMS fo
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:10:44PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ben Hutchings, le Sun 01 Nov 2009 19:06:59 +, a écrit :
> > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 19:53 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > there are some functions in glibc which are questionably declared with
> > > the "warn
> > > about unus
Ben Hutchings, le Sun 01 Nov 2009 19:06:59 +, a écrit :
> On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 19:53 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 25.10.2009 19:55, Kees Cook wrote:
> [...]
> > > - makes more work for dealing with warnings.
> > > Rebuttal: those warnings are there for a reason -- they can
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 19:53 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 25.10.2009 19:55, Kees Cook wrote:
[...]
> > - makes more work for dealing with warnings.
> > Rebuttal: those warnings are there for a reason -- they can
> >be real security issues, and should be fixed.
On 25.10.2009 19:55, Kees Cook wrote:
Hello,
I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
uses[2]. Ubuntu has used it successfully for 1.5 years now (3 releases),
and many of the issues have already been fixed in packages that needed
adjustment[3]. After all this t
]] Peter Samuelson
(I think this discussion is getting silly, feel free to take it to
private mail.)
| > | === modified file 'policy.sgml'
| > | --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
| > | +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 00:59:18 +
| > | @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
| > |
| > | I
Hi Manoj,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
> >> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
> >> after being checked individually, and was filed one by o
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
>> numbers o
Cyril Brulebois (01/11/2009):
> Then you probably should read Policy 7.1.1. Individual checks or
> non-automation doesn't make it less massive.
Make it DevRef (thanks, Kumar).
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Filippo Rusconi
* Package name: colorcode
Version : 0.5.5
Upstream Author : Dirk Laebisch
* URL : http://colorcode.laebisch.com/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : advanced clone of the Master
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
>> numbers of false positives, and
Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
> numbers of false positives, and thus these are just bugs fi
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
> release!
People ignoring bugs wilfully a
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>> Hi Manoj,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>>
>> Please respect the
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-f
[ Adding -qa to Cc ]
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
>
> I don't think it's appropriate for the ftp team to add any other
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:17:43AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Can you please consider changing the above naming?
> FWIW the actual reject messages are very clear and do not use these
> terms (which I've changed in Git anyway, pending merge). Thanks.
Thanks a lot for your change!
BTW, in spite o
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be
>> overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
>> enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never ha
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: pudb
Version: 0.92.13
Upstream Author: Andreas Kloeckner
URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pudb/
License: MIT
Description: full-screen, console-based Python debugger
PuDB
Hi All,
I've stumbled upon over a year old bug #440436.
All the bugs that have been blocking this bug report have now been
resolved and the package in question has been removed from Debian.
I don't know of any reason why this bug still appears as RC bug but
since it has been over a year somebody m
Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
> d
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
debian-devel.
thanks,
Michael
-
[ please cc both me and the package team ]
Hi debian-devel
The Moodle package team is currently evaluating how to best upgrade the
existing not very well working, and out of date package.
Moodle is a webapp that works with both mysql and postgres. We currently
have a single package that supports
Hi ,
First of all check for any proprietary data you have in your system and see if
you have to include their licenses. Unless this is the case deliver the debian
package4 common-licenses with your distribution this way you can be sure that
most of the possible violation can be avoided. Also m
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
>
> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
> what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
> the maximum
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: LI Daobing
* Package name: gemanx-gtk2
Version : 0.1.0.1
Upstream Author : Ruizhe Li , Henry Hu
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/gemanx
* License : GPLv2
Programming Lang: C++
Description : Term BBS Client beyon
* Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> Some problems I find with this list:
I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
the maximum amount of (free) software the primary goal?
> E: ftp-master: copyright-lists
PORTUGUES-BRASIL
Olá
Eu montei uma distribuição baseada inteiramente em Debian com ambiente
gráfico KDE e os pacotes Debian, foi com um ambiente muito amigável, com
scripts automatizados para configuração e compilei um kernel com o nome da
minha distro e tudo mais.
Bem, minha pergunta é, eu gosta
> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
release!
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-re
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be
> overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
> enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never happen.
> In fact, most of th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Xavier Guimard
* Package name: libapache-session-ldap-perl
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Xavier Guimard
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~guimard/Apache-Session-LDAP-0.02/
* License : Artistic | GPL2
Programming Lang:
Olá, neste e-mail eu venho falar sobre as suas escolhas; Na vida a cada
instante você tem podido escolher o que ira fazer, e se for sábio, muitas
vezes pensa bem antes de escolher, pois sabe que uma má escolha pode trazer
péssimas consequências, pois a vida é assim, causa e efeito, ação e re
82 matches
Mail list logo
