On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 26 2:16:07 AM IST, Dominik George
wrote:
>Heisann, alle sammen,
>
>as announced in the recent thread about maintaining, I hereby propose a
>repository that allows making “backports” of packages available to
>users
>of the stable distribution, if those packages cannot be maintai
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Parent
* Package name: ruby-kitchen-docker
Version : 2.7.0
Upstream Author : Sean Porter, ...
* URL : https://github.com/test-kitchen/kitchen-docker
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description
Hey list,
I wasn't sure which other Debian mailing list might be more
appropriate, but lsb-discuss appeared to be defunct since 2002.
My package has an LSB friendly init.d script it distributes to manage
the daemon it ships as a system service. I'd like to use it during unit
testing so the daemon
> - no need to keep a volatile package out of testing
Oh, and yes. Having a package in testing means it will be supported for a
stable lifecycle - a full contradiction to volatile!
-nik
Hi,
>I would, however, completely separate it from backports. I.e.
>
> - separate NEW queue
> - different suffix
> - no need to keep a volatile package out of testing
>
>Why?
>
> - volatile is a different beast from backports, this should be
> very clear to both package maintainers and our users
Hi all,
I like the idea of having a volatile archive and I agree with
almost all what Dominik wrote about the motivation.
I would, however, completely separate it from backports. I.e.
- separate NEW queue
- different suffix
- no need to keep a volatile package out of testing
Why?
- volatil
>Just to make things a bit clearer for people who may not have followed
>some of the discussions on d-bp-users lately: the point is to be able
>to
>support fast-moving software with not-so-fast moving dependencies;
>the dependencies may easily be backported without too large a burden
>(their versio
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:52:07PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >having read the whole Gitlab discussion, I still don't get how/why the
> >new repository depends or relates to backports. Instead it could be
> >self-contained, except for stuff already available in stable. Couldn't
> >you
Andreas Henriksson writes ("Re: Policy and procedures issue: init package
hijacked via hostile NMU (declined by maintainers)"):
> I have only seen a limited amount of Dmitrys work, but my impression
> is that he's not someone who should be trusted with unrestricted
> uploading privileges. I think
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 05:37:56PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 5:33 PM Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Could you please either take this patch or propose a different approach?
> > I have received no feedback other than a brief unconclusive remark on IRC.
>
> Sorry for the radi
Hi,
I like the general direction, but there are some aspects of your
>proposal
>which should be improved.
Thanks!
>> Other ideas: fastlane, unsupported
>
>Or maybe something like "fastpaced", after all this repo would not be
>unsupported at all, the very point is to provide actual support after
Hi all,
having read the whole Gitlab discussion, I still don't get how/why the new
repository depends or relates to backports. Instead it could be self-contained,
except for stuff already available in stable. Couldn't you roll the new
repository entirely independent of any backports? Even if yo
Hi,
>having read the whole Gitlab discussion, I still don't get how/why the
>new repository depends or relates to backports. Instead it could be
>self-contained, except for stuff already available in stable. Couldn't
>you roll the new repository entirely independent of any backports? Even
>if you
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andrej Shadura
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: dictzip-java
Version : 0.8.2
Upstream Author : Hiroshi Miura
* URL : https://github.com/dictzip/dictzip-java
* License : GPL-2+ with Classpat
> In short: This proposal addresses the exact concerns you raised before
> )although I am not the person you expressed them towards).
Well, sure, I was involved in that thread, but only in the way that I
announced a proposal (this one). Not in any of the stuff concerning
adding something to -backp
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:11:43PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2018/12/msg00028.html
>
> This wasn't about gitlab.
Oh. I must have misread the "gitlab" in the subject, along withthe mail
being sent to the gitlab maintainer, a gitlab bugreport in the B
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:
> > We already told you to build your own repo.
>
> You should probably start with identifying the senders of mail
> correctly ☺. I am not the gitlab maintainer (and will never be).
https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2018/12/msg00028.html
This wa
> We already told you to build your own repo.
You should probably start with identifying the senders of mail
correctly ☺. I am not the gitlab maintainer (and will never be).
> Imho you should start the same way backports started - outside of
> debian.
> Prove that it works and integrate into Debi
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:
> Heisann, alle sammen,
>
> as announced in the recent thread about maintaining, I hereby propose a
> repository that allows making “backports” of packages available to users
> of the stable distribution, if those packages cannot be maintained in
> testi
Heisann, alle sammen,
as announced in the recent thread about maintaining, I hereby propose a
repository that allows making “backports” of packages available to users
of the stable distribution, if those packages cannot be maintained in
testing and backported in the usual way. If you are intereste
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:03:34PM +0100, Oibaf wrote:
> The package fuse3 is available since awhile in sid/buster.
> Their users however are still using old fuse (v2), e.g. sshfs-fuse.
> According to this:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912528
> fuse3 is not co-installable wit
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Adam Borowski
* Package name: lz4json
Version : ?
Upstream Author : Andi Kleen
* URL : https://github.com/andikleen/lz4json
* License : BSD-2 ish
Programming Lang: C
Description : unpack lz4json files, usually gen
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Parent
* Package name: ruby-kitchen-salt
Version : 0.4.0
Upstream Author : SaltStack Inc
* URL : https://github.com/saltstack/kitchen-salt
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : salt provisi
23 matches
Mail list logo
