Jose Luis Rivas writes:
> […] lots of feature-requests bugs which were already sent to upstream
> but haven't been fixed and are there taking dust.
In what sense are they gathering dust? What problem is it causing you
for the reports to stay in the BTS?
> Should we keep them? Cant I just close
On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 22:22 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:44:21AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Funny that you ask. What's the usual competitor for ZFS?
> > > btrfs is included in stock kernels, doesn't take massive amounts of
> > > memory,
> > > and has a different
Hi,
I would like to keep as clean as possible the BTS of my packages. With
`rtorrent` particularly I have found lots of feature-requests bugs which
were already sent to upstream but haven't been fixed and are there
taking dust.
Should we keep them? Cant I just close them since are no Debian-speci
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:44:21AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Funny that you ask. What's the usual competitor for ZFS?
> > btrfs is included in stock kernels, doesn't take massive amounts of memory,
> > and has a different approach to deduplication.
>
> and is slower than any of its competit
On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 21:02 +0200, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
[...]
> Possible solution:
>
> - Create a new package (for example, resume-base).
I still don't see why a new package is needed. I suggested linux-base
and you said 'uswsusp doesn't need the kernel package (you can boot from
a floppy
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 04:12:11PM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> I'm curious why there's no apparent appetite for hdfs / solr / etc.
I don't know how far regex matching is with solr these days. This
implementation is AFAIK based on [1]. But then the tool exists and would need
to be thrown away co
> "Upgrading is easy" is not really a valid retort. Though it does mitigate
> the cost, it does not eliminate it. Nobody wants to spend their automation
> budget on making upgrading easy enough to do on a whim. There are plenty
> of other concerns that automation must address that have nothing to d
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:40:08AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Luca Filipozzi writes:
> > Why do you say that when you haven't even asked?
> Because I thought the answer was going to be “not in the Linux kernel,
> no chance”.
We also run kfreebsd, with some challenge, but we have it.
> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 27/08/13 14:32, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
>> What do you do with the 1 year of support Debian currently gives to
>> oldstable? It's also 1 year you stopped using that version, so no
>> technical challenge either.
>
> There does need to be
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> > IMHO the Security Team should not act as fixers themselves but more as
>> > proxies, passing information about a security issue to the maintainer of
>> > the package.
>>
>> And
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Tonnerre Lombard
* Package name: golang-openldap-dev
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Marc Quinton
* URL : https://github.com/mqu/openldap/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Go
Description : OpenLDAP client integr
11 matches
Mail list logo
