On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
> >
> > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key r
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
> >
> > Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> > Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
>
> Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> Norbert> should be completely inde
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:14:50AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
>
> Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
> Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
> Norbert> should be completely inde
> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
Norbert> I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined
Norbert> by presence/absence of a GPG key in certain key rings. This
Norbert> should be completely independent from what one can do on
Norbert> salsa. So I propose that
Hi,
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tsl5zpyigx4@suchdamage.org
Thanks, sounds reasonable.
> I'll take this as input that we should have better transition strategies
> for salsa when a project owner's status changes.
I would propose something else: Debian rights are defined by
presen
> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes:
Norbert> Hi, (please Cc, not reading d-d)
Norbert> On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
Norbert> And would you be so helpful in providing a link to that
Norbert> understanding of consensus? Only posting a link to the
Norbert> st
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:40:26 +0200, Daniel Lange
wrote:
>DSA should re-evaluate that.
>
>We run into more and more problems sending from @debian.org email
>addresses as the three big players in email ratchet up their anti-spam
>measures.
This message and the following discussion has deeply sadde
Am 04.06.19 um 17:51 schrieb Graham Inggs:
I would certainly make use of SMTP for sending @debian.org email. I
can't see the advantage of IMAP over forwarding though, would you
explain how you see it working, or who would use it?
I wouldn't need IMAP either. But for those who are stuck with
Hi,
(please Cc, not reading d-d)
On Sun, 02 Jun 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Dh as a Preferred Packaging Style
> =
>
> As promised, I started a discussion [3] on whether we wanted to prefer
> (and in some cases require) the dh sequencer from Debhelper as a package
>
Aurelien Jarno writes:
> kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 have now been moved to debian-ports. As
> hurd-i386 has been moved earlier, it means that all the 3 architectures
> have now been moved.
I removed kfreebsd-* and hurd-i386 from ftp-master's unstable and
experimental suites yesterday. The m
11 matches
Mail list logo
