I disagree almost completely.
On 2012-03-25 16:00, Joey Hess wrote:
> But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
No, it's not nothing, and it's not a pointless bureaucracy. Filing an
ITP shows your intent to a hundreds of developers, which is:
a) useful for the ITP ow
* Uoti Urpala [2012-03-23 19:44]:
> IMO your upstart advocacy and anti-systemd FUD crosses the line between
> having your own opinions and having your own facts.
Could you please mind your words. Your style of discussion is very
hostile!
There was neither FUD nor advocacy in Steves mail and no
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Joey Hess writes:
> ...
>> > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
>> > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
>> > copyright issue, and one for
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
...
> > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
> > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
> > copyright issue, and one for a package that had an independe
Hi Henri,
On 24/03/12 06:29, Henri Le Foll wrote:
> A Team field should be added to debian/control. (and also to the .dsc)
> ===
>
>- I hope every package will one day belong to a team.
>
>- I think that each package in
On 25/03/12 16:31, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Christine Spang writes:
>> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
>> alternate name.
>
> Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
> in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
If its been u
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There might be a good reason why the ITP is staled, like your own
> example with copyright issues. What would you say if someone else just
> ignored your ITP and uploaded the package without clearing up the
> copyright issues or even uploading a different package hijac
Joey Hess writes:
> Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Christoph Egger writes:
>> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>>
>> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
>
> But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
> The turnaround time for packaging the average packag
On 03/25/2012 10:31 PM, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Christine Spang writes:
>> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
>> alternate name.
>
> Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
> in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
I think
Hi!
Christine Spang writes:
> I'll talk to David and sponsor his upload if we can agree on an
> alternate name.
Make sure to also get the binary renamed (though the scheme one is used
in shebangs since nearlly half a decade).
Regards
Christoph
--
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9
Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph Egger writes:
> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
But still nothing. ITP is more often than not a pointless bureaucracy.
The turnaround time for packaging the average package is less than the
turnaround t
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:15:47PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph Egger writes:
> > Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
Right, the developer's reference isn't policy. Forcing the creation of a
WNPP bug for a package that's already re
Christoph Egger wrote:
> Read Policy 5.1 again
>
> Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
> you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”)
> against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to create a new
> package, including, but not li
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:14:42PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Christoph, please
My bad---please excuse my brain's autocompletion; Christopher is a much
more common name in the US.
> There's a RFS from February
I did miss that. I do suspect that the fact that no one has sponsored
that pack
Christoph Egger writes:
> Read Policy 5.1 again
Well right, that's devref, clicked on the wrong link but still
> Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
> you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”)
> against the pseudo-package wnpp describ
Hi!
Christine Spang writes:
> hi Christopher,
Christoph, please
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The `mosh` you quote reads
>>
>> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
>>
>> This is something totaly different from
hi Christopher,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The `mosh` you quote reads
>
> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
>
> This is something totaly different from
>
> mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
I propose that t
Hi!
The `mosh` you quote reads
mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
This is something totaly different from
mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
which this bug is about.
Additionally I find it highly inappropriate for someone to take a
package name with an ope
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jakub Wilk
* Package name: y-u-no-validate
Version : 2012032401
Upstream Author : Marcin Szewczyk
* URL :
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/y-u-no-validate/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: JavaScript
19 matches
Mail list logo
