The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1180 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 129 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 06:46:29PM +0200, Julien Plissonneau Duqu�ne wrote:>
> Unlike some people I believe that debbugs can be improved and modernized in
> a satisfying way while retaining most if not all of its current interfaces.
> This would minimize breakage and inconvenience for developers th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antoine Beaupre
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: python-manhole
Version : 1.8.1
Upstream Contact: https://github.com/ionelmc
* URL : https://github.com/ionelmc/python-man
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:15:23PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu May 29, 2025 at 9:58 AM BST, Holger Levsen wrote:
> But their contribution is the thing that's valuable to us, more so than
> their email address.
no, it's the combination. we need to interact.
--
cheers,
Holger
On 17607 March 1977, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
The delay is only a part of the issue, the other part is the lack of
feedback that would allow the user to know if her registration is
still
pending or has been rejected.
Oh, reject you get a mail. If its deleted, you don't.
I like the
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Georg Lehner
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: femto
Version : 2.21.6
Upstream Contact: Hugh Barney https://github.com/hughbarney
* URL : https://github.com/jorge-leon/femto
* License : public-do
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:03:56PM +0200, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
Right now we have an implementation that is dated but mostly works so
I think that there is no need to rush a move. Working on it for a
while and experimenting with the real data in there will certainly
help with figuri
On Thu May 29, 2025 at 9:58 AM BST, Holger Levsen wrote:
(still, I think the answer to that should not be to hide email
addresses but something else, eg maybe asking new bts users if they
are aware that there email address will become public and block their
submissions until they agree...)
Bu
On May 29, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
Security measures should be proportional to the specific threat, and
we actually know that targeted malicious attacks to the BTS are not
happening.
We know that they didn't happen so far. I would not be so sure about
the future.
There is always a
Le 2025-05-29 10:58, Holger Levsen a écrit :
(still, I think the answer to that should not be to hide email
addresses
but something else, eg maybe asking new bts users if they are aware
that there
email address will become public and block their submissions until they
agree...)
My personal
Le 2025-05-28 18:41, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
Security measures should be proportional to the specific threat, and
we actually know that targeted malicious attacks to the BTS are not
happening.
We know that they didn't happen so far. I would not be so sure about the
future.
Anyway there are
Le 2025-05-29 02:43, Colin Watson a écrit :
While it might be possible to carry on doing without, the data
fundamentally has many relational properties and an RDBMS would make
life a lot easier. I wish I'd known what I know now about PostgreSQL
when I was in my period of working on debbugs v
On 29/05/2025 2:25 pm, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:30:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
I've also seen very very few complaints about the fact that the BTS shows
email addresses if submitters and contributors. And I'm definitly not aware
that we identified this as a problem!
Hello,
On Thu 29 May 2025 at 11:31am +02, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:27:09AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
>>> packaging git repository contents.
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:27:09AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state of
patches: They're applied in
Hello,
On Thu 29 May 2025 at 05:26am +02, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Isn't this what dgit is supposed to solve?
dgit solves this for people wanting to make local changes and NMUs, yes.
For maintainers, if you want to use patches-applied dgit will be happy
with it but you'll probably want to u
Hello,
On Wed 28 May 2025 at 10:04pm +02, Marc Haber wrote:
> My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
> packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state of
> patches: They're applied in the unpacked source package, and not applied in
>
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:40:33AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I've also seen very very few complaints about the fact that the BTS shows
> > email addresses if submitters and contributors. And I'm definitly not aware
> > that we identified this as a problem!
> owner@bugs gets complaints about th
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:30:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > I've also seen very very few complaints about the fact that the BTS shows
> > email addresses if submitters and contributors. And I'm definitly not aware
> > that we identified this as a problem!
> It definitely attracts huge amoun
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:54:37AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > A, indeed. Otoh the dgit-people feel a source package should be treated as
> > an
> > intermediate build artifact; not something to be consumed by humans.
>
> Bu
Hi,
Simon is completely right.
On 29-05-2025 01:34, Simon McVittie wrote:
in your position I'd want to add this test coverage
in experimental first, and delay adding it in unstable until the forky
cycle opens unless there's a reason why it's particularly important.
As a related remark, uplo
Hi,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:39:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 05:26:31AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >
> > > My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
> > > packagi
Quoting Marc Haber (2025-05-29 09:57:07)
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:21:13AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >Perhaps, to ease the burden of those of us maintaining many packages,
> >we could instead have this more complex rule:
> >
> >> The default debian branch is the first available of these,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:21:13AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Perhaps, to ease the burden of those of us maintaining many packages,
we could instead have this more complex rule:
The default debian branch is the first available of these, in order:
1. debian/latest
2. debian/unstable
3. debia
On 28/05/2025 7:52 pm, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Julien,
thanks and applause for this initiative of yours! I agree the bts could
see several improvements..!
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 06:46:29PM +0200, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote:
We would like debbugs to:
0. keep all the e-mail features it c
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
A, indeed. Otoh the dgit-people feel a source package should be treated as an
intermediate build artifact; not something to be consumed by humans.
But if you decide not to use dgit you're back to source packages. It
might be
On 29/05/2025 12:51 pm, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Xiyue Deng (2025-05-29 06:15:30)
Hi Holger,
Holger Levsen writes:
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
default, then it seems that requires
Hi,
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 05:26:31AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:04:01PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
My personal pet peeve is the difference between the source package and the
packaging git repository contents. Those two especially differ in the state
of patches
Quoting Xiyue Deng (2025-05-29 06:15:30)
> Hi Holger,
>
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:21:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> If you suggest that using "debian/latest" should *not* be done by
> >> default, then it seems that requires reverting changes to DEP-14.
>
Hi,
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:11:47PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
my biggest problem with dep14 is that it doesnt recommend *one* layout. my
biggest problem with how I see that interpreted is that I think debian/unstable
is much better than debian/latest *as a default recommendation*.
because
30 matches
Mail list logo
