Sure I do understand how things work. I'm not suggesting that ALL discussions
need be public - specifically I was not meaning deliberations on any given
case.
But I do think that general policy discussions should involve the entire debian
community - as is done for Debian Policy Manual.
O
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
* Package name: goval-parser
Version : 0.0~git20170813.0.0a0be1d
Upstream Author : Yasunari Momoi
* URL : https://github.com/ymomoi/goval-parser.git
* License : BSD 2-Clause License
Programming Lang: G
Steve Robbins dijo [Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 01:15:35PM -0600]:
> (...)
> To me, one of the puzzling aspects is why the FTP policy work has been so
> secretive. The release team has a mailing list, tech committee has a mailing
> list. There is Debian Policy list. It doesn't seem in congruence that
Source: gcc-8
Version: 8-20180218-1
Severity: wishlist
We have long transitioned to PIE by default on all release architectures
now. Still each gcc-V package tracks the architectures that enable PIE
by default in an opt-in list (pie_archs).
Since it is the default, PIE is much better supported th
Ian Jackson wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso writes ("Re: Rant about Debian reproducibility environment"\
|):
|> But despite that and the possibly correct observation that placing
|> just about any environmental info in any non-system-dependent
|> object you can close the issue that is my rant, but w
On 14969 March 1977, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Sure thing, I'll give it a try. Since I'm not familiar with the dak
> code, would you be so kind to point me to the functions and variables
> (if available) that are there to
> - extract or hold the bugs listed in the last changelog entry,
> - query t
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:35:08PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Gert Wollny writes:
>
> > […] simply asking the peers doesn't make the process very public.
>
> That is, IIUC, by design and for good reason.
>
> Before a review of the copyright status of the work is done, we don't
> have confidence
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 08:05 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to
> replace - not add - to the present system of checking that penalizes
> uploads of existing source but new binaries. So human resources
> should not be the issue.
Yes, that's
Steve,
> I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to replace -
> not add - to the present system of checking that penalizes uploads of
> existing source but new binaries. So human resources should not be the
> issue.
In my experience, time/energy/focus is not as fungible or
I think the suggestion of randomized spot checking is meant to replace - not
add - to the present system of checking that penalizes uploads of existing
source but new binaries. So human resources should not be the issue.
I would imagine that the packages currently being selected are not arbitr
My preferred algorithm is dead simple : if the source package is the same, it
is not NEW.
Sorry for the top -post. My mobile device client is deficient.
On March 6, 2018 11:34:29 AM CST, Bastian Blank wrote:
>Hi Steve
>
>Please don't top-post and fix the length of your lines.
>
>On Tue, Mar 06
bw writes ("Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation"):
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have read the bug logs and Trent Buck's message here
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694068#47
> > seems to suggest a way forward.
> >
> > Perhaps someone
bw writes ("Re: (solved) Re: wireless fail after stretch installation"):
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Brian wrote:
> > One user calls it a "sick joke". After five years and with no attempt
> > to rectify the situation, I'm beginning to have sympathy with that view.
Debian, like all ordinary software, is
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2018, 20:35 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney:
> Gert Wollny writes:
>
> > […] simply asking the peers doesn't make the process very public.
>
> That is, IIUC, by design and for good reason.
>
> Before a review of the copyright status of the work is done, we don't
> have confiden
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 06:02:10AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > > I know for a fact that quite regularly licence checks on binNEW
> > > > packages causes RC bugs to pop up. I acknowledge it may be a
> > > > burder for the ftp team, but that reason alone probably deser
Gert Wollny writes:
> […] simply asking the peers doesn't make the process very public.
That is, IIUC, by design and for good reason.
Before a review of the copyright status of the work is done, we don't
have confidence the Debian Project has permission to redistribute it
publicly.
If it turns
Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2018, 08:09 +0100 schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
>
> If someone comes up with a patch to process-new which does this in a
> halfway reliable way, it doesn't need a long time wasting thread on
> devel to get it.
Sure thing, I'll give it a try. Since I'm not familiar with the dak
cod
17 matches
Mail list logo
