On 04-05-13 05:04, Charles Plessy wrote:
> In any case, please refrain passive-aggressive statements on other people's
> projects.
Except that this time the "project" we're talking about was one person
asking another person "can you clarify what I meant?", which seems to
make no sense, at all. If
Charles Plessy wrote:
>It would be definitely a big undertaking, but the point
> I want to make is that one can not say that Git repositories could not
> be redistributed by Debian and at the same time be satisfied with the
> way we handle our packages currently. (And to make
Le Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:11:23PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > The fact is that Debian does not make much effort to ensure that we do not
> > distribute unredistributable files in our mirrors and installation media,
> > once
> > a pack
Am 19.04.2013 00:33, schrieb Guillem Jover:
I think the full-multiarch support for python in
> experimental should really be reverted.
No. This is backward, and the wrong way to go forward. I do acknowledge that
there are issues with the current state of dpkg, but I'm not seeing how you are
plan
Am 24.04.2013 11:23, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
do you have some insight how openjpeg enters this game? apparently some packages
already use openjpeg explicitly to support some jpeg2000 features. There was
some discussion on that in Ubuntu, see https://launchpad.net/bugs/711061.
Matthias
--
To UNS
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The fact is that Debian does not make much effort to ensure that we do not
> distribute unredistributable files in our mirrors and installation media, once
> a package has passed its first copyright and license review.
That is simply not tr
Le Sat, May 04, 2013 at 05:06:37AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
> > upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
> > from the m
Le Fri, May 03, 2013 at 06:50:22PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
>
> - legal problems
>
> But the source packages are found on DVDs and mirrors all over the
> world. Many people help us distributing Debian. We owe them to do
> out best to keep them out of legal trouble for doing so.
Hi
Package: general
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
* What led up to the situation?
Whenever I restart my machine the screen is completely dimmed till login
page where i need to bring it back manually to normal bright
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 15:09, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> > No, it's not. Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly
>>> due
>>> > to problems with maintainers not even build testing their packages.
>
>> They do. They just ignore the
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 01:05:06AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [130504 00:32]:
> > The way to ensure that builds in non-clean environments work properly is
> > to devise a method for testing them, and to do those tests on a regular
> > basis and turn test failures into bugs.
>
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Russ Allbery [130504 00:32]:
>> The way to ensure that builds in non-clean environments work properly
>> is to devise a method for testing them, and to do those tests on a
>> regular basis and turn test failures into bugs.
> Noone is speaking about non-clean envir
* Arto Jantunen , 2013-05-03, 11:12:
Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly due to problems
with maintainers not even build testing their packages.
[citation needed]
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
> upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
> from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard,
> could you comme
* Russ Allbery [130504 00:32]:
> The way to ensure that builds in non-clean environments work properly is
> to devise a method for testing them, and to do those tests on a regular
> basis and turn test failures into bugs.
Noone is speaking about non-clean environments, but only about
non-minimal,
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> The issue with sterile build environments is not just for building
> packages for normal use. If I'm fixing a bug in a package, I may need
> to build that package several times, testing different fixes. If
> everyone assumes that packages will be built in a sterile
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.05.2013, 00:10 +0300 schrieb Timo Juhani Lindfors:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > Once we drop that and only give people the right to modify the
> > software we distribute but no longer the possiblity to do so
> > on their own, the "Free" we are so proud on gets mood.
>
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:10:25AM +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> > Once we drop that and only give people the right to modify the
> > software we distribute but no longer the possiblity to do so
> > on their own, the "Free" we are so proud on gets mood.
>
> Doe
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> Once we drop that and only give people the right to modify the
> software we distribute but no longer the possiblity to do so
> on their own, the "Free" we are so proud on gets mood.
Doesn't pbuilder make it easy enough for anyone to modify and build the
software on t
Many of the comments from different people are very useful (and they are
things that were hinted at in the original email)
One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
from the maintainer) as the cont
2013/5/3 Josselin Mouette :
> There is a solution to both the upload bandwidth problem and the the
> problem that buildd binaries are untested, but I’m afraid it implies
> changes to dak.
>
> This means configuring dak to accepting only two types of uploads:
> - source-only uploads
> They a
* Daniel Pocock [130501 21:28]:
> Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
> git-bundle?
I think a git based source package has quite some problems.
- failing to properly make changes visible
While you can express every history-graph in git, that is not an
advan
* Holger Levsen [130502 12:28]:
> > People do this all the time: upload packages built against local packages,
> > experimental or even on Ubuntu to Debian sid.
>
> /me shivers. This hurts. There is no reason not to rebuild in sane
> environments. Can we please fix this for the next release?!
I
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Evgeni Golov
* Package name: plv8
Version : 1.4.0
Upstream Author : PLV8JS Development Group
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/plv8js/
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: C++, JavaScript
Description : Procedural la
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hello
I don't think Christophe has any more time to work on openmx.
It would be nice to have someone taking care of it in the context of Debian
science.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hello
I don't think Christophe or Adam have any more time to work on parmetis.
It would be nice to have someone taking care of it in the context of Debian
science.
Thanks,
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
Le vendredi 03 mai 2013 à 09:18 +0800, Chow Loong Jin a écrit :
> While we're at it, can we also have source-only uploads? Uploading potentially
> huge binary packages that just go to /dev/null seems like a pointless waste of
> bandwidth to me, and the only for argument I've heard (which I don't b
Neil Williams, le Fri 03 May 2013 15:32:46 +0100, a écrit :
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:45:57 +1000
> "Robert Thomas Hayes Link" wrote:
>
> > Why doesn't the home page at debian dot org reflect a second and third
> > release candidate?
>
> It does:
>
> To install Debian testing, we recommend you us
On Fri, 3 May 2013 23:45:57 +1000
"Robert Thomas Hayes Link" wrote:
> Why doesn't the home page at debian dot org reflect a second and third
> release candidate?
It does:
To install Debian testing, we recommend you use the wheezy Release Candidate 3
release of the installer, after checking its
Greetings.
Why doesn't the home page at debian dot org reflect a second and third
release candidate?
rl
> The Debian Installer team[1] is pleased to announce the third (and
> hopefully last) release candidate of the installer for Debian 7.0
> "Wheezy".
>
>
> Improvements in this release of the i
On Fri, May 3, 2013 15:09, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > No, it's not. Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly
>> due
>> > to problems with maintainers not even build testing their packages.
> They do. They just ignore the issue; they can do that because it's a
> scalability issue tha
On 03-05-13 10:25, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 16:12, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> > Chow Loong Jin writes:
> >
> >> On 03/05/2013 15:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>> Isn't that already possible?
> >>
> >> It is? I should try that out with my next upload.
> >
> > No, it's not. Source on
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:56:07AM +0200, Marwan Tanager wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 05:23:42AM -0400, giri wrote:
> > Package: general
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Dear Maintainer,
> > *** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***
> >
> >* What led up to the situa
On 05/03/2013 02:12 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Yes, speaking as someone who has, on several occasions, uploaded arch: all
> binary packages with source package problems and not discovered that until
> months later via a FTBFS bug from an archive rebuild, I think we should
> rebuild all arch: all p
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:01:51AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> After Wheezy is released, we can talk about throwing away all binary
> >> uploads again... if we can't prevent people doing the wrong thing, we
> >> might have to send bits of what gets uploaded to /dev/null.
> >
> > Whil
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 09:01:51 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 03:18 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > While we're at it, can we also have source-only uploads? Uploading
> > potentially
> > huge binary packages that just go to /dev/null seems like a pointless waste
> > of
> >
On 03/05/2013 16:12, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin writes:
>
>> On 03/05/2013 15:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> Isn't that already possible?
>>
>> It is? I should try that out with my next upload.
>
> No, it's not. Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly due
> to pr
Chow Loong Jin writes:
> On 03/05/2013 15:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Isn't that already possible?
>
> It is? I should try that out with my next upload.
No, it's not. Source only uploads were banned many years ago, mainly due
to problems with maintainers not even build testing their pac
On 03/05/2013 15:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Isn't that already possible?
It is? I should try that out with my next upload.
--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05/03/2013 03:18 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 18:48, Neil Williams wrote:
>> After Wheezy is released, we can talk about throwing away all binary
>> uploads again... if we can't prevent people doing the wrong thing, we
>> might have to send bits of what gets uploaded to /dev/null.
>
40 matches
Mail list logo
