10:48:50 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 05:45:49PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > We do OTOH package more software than most distros on more architectures
> > so we got a lot more exposure for testing coverage, and the revert would
> > involve swi
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 02:06:37AM +0100, Fay Stegerman wrote:
> For example, if it can be made easy to install both and choose between zlib
> and
> zlib-ng at runtime, so it's easy to build APKs using either zlib or zlib-ng as
> needed, downstream breakage can be avoided. Considering whether th
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:55:17AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The problem though is, that because the compressed stream is going to
> change, that can make certain test suites fail if we perform this
> switch, which I think would be the main fallout that we'd see from
> this and would need manu
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 05:45:49PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 15:58:10 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Obviously it's far too late to do anything with the default for trixie,
> > we might want to evaluate doing something after the release but for n
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 09:36:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:58:10PM +0200, Mark Brown a écrit :
> >zlib-ng: https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng
> Hi Mark, just out of curiosity, would the carbon footprint of Debian be
> lower or higher after
A recurrning question with the zlib package in Debian is interest in the
various alternative zlib implementations that are out there. There was
a long period where upstream zlib development seemed very stalled,
during that period people who wanted improvements started forking their
own projects.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:52:37AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:07 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
> > arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> > of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> > the Skylake platform. Th
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:09:34AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 04:48:33PM +, Steven Capper wrote:
> > we have had no discussion
> > over #773359; your response is effectively placing words in my mouth
> > and I will not tolerate that. To confound matters, I wasn't eve
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mark Brown
* Package name: sparse
Version : 0.4.5
Upstream Author : Christopher Li
* URL : https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: C
Description : Semantic parser for
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:37:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Emacs vs. XEmacs is a little like the perpetual vim vs. nvi argument.
> They work differently. Which is "better" can be a matter of opinion,
> speaking as an nvi user who can't stand vim despite the fact that vim
> clearly does more
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 07:07:21PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> This is what Paul did: When writing just a single sentence it might be
> reasonable to derive from a role which is good in general but not
> helpful in specific cases. Please try to make reasonable
> top-posting-bashings if necessa
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 01:30:01PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 11/16/2013 01:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Your assertations here both seem rather strong and unsupported,
> > especially the idea that people don't use Emacs in graphical mode - it
> I have
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:01:48PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 11/16/2013 11:43 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It's a package that we've carried since forever and which has a
> > userbase.
> That's not really an argument. We've also had uae and
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 09:49:49PM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Why should Debian carry this package?
It's a package that we've carried since forever and which has a
userbase.
> Which virtual packages are you planning to provide?
The same set as the package previously did: emacsen, info-br
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mark Brown
Package name: xemacs21-support
Version : 21.4.22
Upstream Author : XEmacs team
URL : http://www.xemacs.org/
License : GPL and others
Programming Lang: elisp
Description : highly customizable text
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:05:31PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Furthermore, is it not usual practice for ftp master to comment on
> actual packages, rather than theoretical ones? an ITP is "intent to
> package". There's no package to critique yet!
Actually I'm starting from the previous pack
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 03:25:16PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:06:37AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > > Before you put this in NEW, how do you plan on fixing the outstanding RC
&
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:06:37AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Before you put this in NEW, how do you plan on fixing the outstanding RC
> bugs?
By making changes to the software.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
Don't top post.
> Out of curiosity, how do you plan on solving it's six rc bugs?
Yes, of course. Well, the one that was there when I looked is fixed,
I'll see if the BTS tells me about any open ones after the reupload.
signa
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:29:50PM +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:02:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > * Package name: xemacs21
> > Version : 21.4.22
> Wasn't this removed just one month ago?
Yes, this is why I'm ITPing it.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mark Brown
* Package name: xemacs21
Version : 21.4.22
Upstream Author : XEmacs development team
URL : http://www.xemacs.org/
License : GPL
Programming Lang: C, elisp
Description : highly customizable text
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 07:30:48PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> So in answer to your question, there are plenty of Android devices
> which are trivially unlockable. (And once a Nexus phone is unlocked,
> it's you can get a root shell trivially; no jail-breaking necessary.
> Of course this is true for
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:14:49PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Seeing the trouble broonie has with zlib, why are those
> packages still built anyway? Can???t they please go away?
The biarch packages really aren't any bother, the issue with s390x has
been having to jump through hoops due to th
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 05:06:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, all of these packages appear to be specific to amd64, so I don't
> know why Mark would be adding new biarch packages for s390. You should
> probably ask him.
Ask the s390x folks, they asked for them. Though what on ear
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 04:52:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
> > Yes, and this is what I did. It's just rather tedious to (IIRC)
> > repeatedly run "dpkg-reconfigure sysv-rc" and then find out which file
> > is offending, run "dpkg -S $file", and then purge it.
> I've not
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:16:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 d??cembre 2010 ?? 19:38 +0000, Mark Brown a ??crit :
> > I'm not sure why you believe this is an issue in NIS?
> I???m not sure why you believe this is an issue in gnome-screensaver
> either.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Mark Brown]
> > Honestly I'd have expected something like this to show up on -devel,
> > or at least -devel-announce, at some point.
> And I do not expect it, I must admit. Everyone do not get a say o
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:26:01PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On ven., 2010-11-12 at 10:37 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > In terms of the artwork choice itself (SpaceFun), I've seen a lot of
> > comments along the lines of "looks like something even my kids would
> > reject for looking to
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:02:24AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> I'm surprised by the resistance I see to these changes. I see the
> approach pushed by dpkg maintainers as fairly conservative with very
> progressive changes to existing packages and much respect for people
> who don't want to a
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The long tag description probably could be improved to make it clearer
> that the intention isn't to be a cudgel.
Unfortunately pretty much any lintian warning ends up being a cudgel if
it's enabled by default since zero lintian warn
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
> such packages?
There used to be a dak package but it ended up lagging very badly behind
the actual dak code because it needed some database schema upgrades as
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:07:59PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> For zless, people seem to open the debian.tar with vim or similar but I
> can understand that it's less usable than a simple pager view of the
> relevant files. Maybe it's a good idea to provide a debreview/debinspect
> command in
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But the pv-ops xen kernel is shaping up well and that is what Bastian
> Banks is working on. They have a proper upstream and follow the latest
> vanilla kernel well enough. According to the wiki the plan is to have
> pv-ops me
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:13:41PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 16:13 +0100 schrieb Bastian Blank:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:53:32PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > Is anyone interested in starting a Debian Mobile project, probably as a
> > > Debian
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:57:29PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > This looks like a workaround for some other problem to me. Patting at 0.1Hz
> > should be sufficient if the kernel expects a change at 0.016 Hz. I don't
> > have
> > any r
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:51:24PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:45:53AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > (BTW, is there any other watchdog daemon? The watchdog package reliably
> > fails to detect when the system is half-killed by OOM.)
> How about explaing your problem
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:11:25AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Marco d'Itri]
> > I maintain the package providing it, but I fear it is the result of
> > cargo cult sysadmining. A driver will not engage the watchdog
> > anyway until /dev/watchdog is opened.
> If I remember correctly, the
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:45:27PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> As discussed by a number of people in bug #562757 it appears that
> nfs-kernel-server has kicked off a transition to the use of rpcbind - at
> least, nfs-kernel-server has switched to needing rpcbind and we can't
>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Ehm, the reason was a bug. nfs-common was broken, if connecting to localhost
> it was only trying ::1, but without a fallback on 127.0.0.1.
> There wasn't any indication in the package that this breakage was on purpose.
> I guess i
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> I see that nfs-common depends on portmap | rpcbind. However, nis only depends
> on portmap, and can therefore not be installed at the same time as rpcbind.
Yes, this is the root of the issue - if we're changing what we're doing
with
to the current state
but none of them seem to have a summary of what the intention is - does
anyone have any information here?
Daniel Baumann
doodle (U)
Mark Brown
nis
Tim Cutts
am-utils
Debian QA Group
unfs3
Alberto Gonzalez Iniesta
netkit-bootparamd
netkit-rusers
n
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:42:53PM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was
> > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches
> > since then?
> Only by the kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 01:56:05AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 09:24 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I guess oss4-dkms will be enough to take care of these users,
> > hopefully it will reach squeeze in time.
> Hopefully not. OSS4 on Linux is part of the problem, not part of t
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:54:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > First of all an objection to the basic principle: the fact that the
> > project "does not seem" to be able to have constructive discussion is
> > not an argument for not having them. I believe that given you
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:40:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If we mean to attract such users, I do not think that the best strategy would
> necessarly be having a pre-existing MIPS support of bioinformatics, which I
> think is completely beyond our reach and expertise. I think that what woul
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:51:12PM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> I prefer "Author(s)". Less text to update when a new author is
> added. It does no harm and affects nothing in the end result. I'm
> curious as to why you think "Author(s)" is a bad thing?
It's the sort of thing you get in automatical
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:59:52PM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> I completely disagree with this lintian warning and prefer to use
> "Author(s)".
I do agree that rejecting on this is probably excessive but I'm curious
as to why you think it's incorrect?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-r
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Not the reverse. This is a major (if not _THE_ major) annoyance with the
> BTS. FWIW this is a long discussed issue, and the BTS maintainers do not
> share this opinion (that mailing @ should also mail the submitter)
> so we're
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:04:19AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:43:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > What would be really useful here is the ability to set up the BTS to
> > subscribe you to bugs you've filed by default. That avoids the issue
>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:32:55AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:21:50PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But reporters are sacrifing some of their time to help us make our
> > distribution better. Do you really think we should scare them away
> > by rewarding bug repo
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:56:11PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
> > Then bring that up and try to move the discussion forward (as now seems
> > to be happening). The approach that's currently being pused seems like
> > a blind alley.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:31:24PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
> > There seems to be at least some crossover between the people who were
> > looking at multiarch and the people doing this stuff.
> But not the people blocking the inclusion of pat
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:12:20PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 29 Jun 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Multiarch was mentioned in the original thread.
> Not that I was happy with the original situation (filing myself a bug),
> but all that "multiarch" blabla and
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 05:59:32PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 17:30:35 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > So strike option 1 and 2 and what are you left with?
> Figure out an acceptable option 4.
Multiarch was mentioned in the original thread.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:44:12PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> * debian/patches/fix_typo.patch:
> Fix typo in the main menu: s/setings/settings
> I would actually be duplicating the description (the patch name being the
> short description, and the changelog entry
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:40:01PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:12:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > * `Signed-off-by` (optional)
> > For the avoidance of confusion I would suggest
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> "Thijs Kinkhorst" writes:
> > above the patch? That works fine for me. Every formalisation has a cost
> > and I'm not sure here that it's offset by the (which?) benefits.
> Possible benefits (partly mentioned in the spec)
> -
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:31:51PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:15:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:10:14PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > I currently don't see a relevant benefit in this above just using the
> >
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:10:14PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> I currently don't see a relevant benefit in this above just using the
> changelog entry, which you need to write anyway. Additional information
Putting the information in the changelog makes it much harder to find
when looking at a p
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:12:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> * `Signed-off-by` (optional)
>
> This field can be used to document the fact that the patch has been
> reviewed by one or more persons. It should list their names and
> emails in the standard format (similar to the e
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:16:48PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think you're missing the point here; my point is that one of the goals of
> > pushing this through as a DEP comes over as being about greatly
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:28:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It feels like half the problem here is that making it a DEP feels much
> > more like something that's being pushed to everyone. If it were going
&
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:03:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And after all, debhelper didn't need a DEP at all in order to come into
> widespread use, so your worst case scenario could equally well come to pass
> without ever going through a public discussion process - there are already a
> f
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header,
> does someone know why?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:48:27AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 21:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > #494120 and #494122.
> [...]
> I disagree with these as the tables in question are easily small enough
> to be a plausible preferred form for modification.
Indeed; this is
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:50:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Personally, my first instinct would be to call that an RC bug, but I may
> be missing some case where config needs to modify the file system.
Given that one of the original goals of all this was to allow the config
to be done on a di
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:43:47PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Yes. Nevertheless, there is a libsalsa that provides a libasound2
> emulation layer for OSS. I'm not aware of whether it has been packaged
> or even whether it is suitable, since I don't run GNU/kFreeBSD anymore.
It should do t
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:48:30AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> - For packages with no tags in the control file, take the tags from the
>review tag set as we have now
Are packages supposed to do this? If they are it'd probably be worth
announcing more generally to let people know it's OK to
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:48:35AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Agreed. If we can identify all libraries (perhaps with a simple grep over
> the lintian lab?) containing these types, and make sure LFS is enabled in
> all of them, it should then be possible to switch once all dependencies
> are rebu
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is
> > there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal
> > importance, there are six
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Steve McIntyre schrieb:
> > I'm curious about that myself. We've tried that in the past, and a
> > 3-year release cycle was what happened. Experience tells us that we
> > have much too big a system to suddenly one day declare "rele
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 02:12:04PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 d??cembre 2008 ?? 11:46 +0100, Tim Dijkstra a ??crit :
> > It still works, some people still use it... so I do not see any need
> > to remove it now. If the time comes to remove gtk+1.2, digitaldj can
> > go too IYAM.
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 04:25:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 05 d?cembre 2008 ? 22:49 +0000, Mark Brown a ?crit :
> > It's nothing to do with power management. I'd rather let it stay until
> > lenny is released, though if it were the only thing keeping
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 07:06:26PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>powertweak
> => Is that still relevant with modern power management policies?
It's nothing to do with power management. I'd rather let it stay until
lenny is rel
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm not advocating that we just stop doing reviews. But IMHO, NEW
> processing should be about the legal problems, not about the random
> lintian warning/errors, and the various other packaging malpractices.
At least package namesp
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:41:29PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
> > be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
> > aspects currently, which might explain wh
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:10:19AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 18:31 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Because that's how the hardware works. If you are making a widget and
> > you need a fpga or hybrid chip of any sort, then you generate a binary
> > blob using the chip manufac
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy.
> The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's
> not fixed, it's lame for people to complain,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
> > would be different but I have not seen them doing this.
> Great, so since
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
Note that there is currently activ
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 04:46:11PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I had posted a followup to linux.debian.user.german. Now I got a very
> strange mail from a italian host telling me that the post was canceled
> and that I have to subscribe a mailing list.
> What the hell is that about? I did not po
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:21:30PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Come on, we are not trying to imitate Vista. Why do you need to ask tons
> of questions just to report a bug? Their only purpose is to confuse the
> guy reporting a bug and who doesn???t know what this /etc/apt/sources.list
> file
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 04:06:50PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I would rather have maintainers spend time improving their packages
> > instead of wasting it trying to figure out why some architecture
> > fail/refuses t
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:21:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> This seems to happen to me most often on the s390 build daemon, and has
> happened with at least 3 to 5 different packages now. (Current example
> is hpodder). In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it happen elsewhere.
> It seems t
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:40:17PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> >With these fixes it still did not build on my system. I needed to change
> >the Build-Depends on lib64z1-dev into zlib1g-dev to get it to build in a
> >clean pbuilder chroot.
> Well, I gue
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 08:34:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The real issue is not that you [Francesco Poli] were posting without
> > disclaimers.
> The issue that led to those disclaimers was *exactly* that some
> thought Francesco should make it c
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:06:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > With these gtk-doc files, it's not so much that the tmpl/*.sgml files
> > are generated but that a tool essential to the build modifies them in a
> > way that cannot be patched because the
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:07:56PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> So I am running the relevant autotools at build time but I still get the
> warning.
If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the
changes which autotools makes are reverted in the clean target. This
means that
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:23:25PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:21:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Of course, MFT brings up the whole "it's not a standard, why should I
> > follow it, my MUA never heard of it" thing... You can't
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:08:23PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> public list that end up in their main INBOX. If those can't make the
> effort to setup Mail-Followup-To, they should post less and not _more_
> just for the sake of complaining about the copies.
Of course, MFT brings up the whole
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 07:14:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The solution to this problem is to fix the mailing list code of conduct to
> stop creating this expectation. We don't enforce it anyway, and all this
> provision seems to do in practice is create these annoying arguments
> periodical
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:41:52PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:30:45AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > When we see spam getting through to the lists, we already adjust the
> > spam filters. If you think you can do a better job, the spamassassin
> > rules are all public
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:37:57PM +0530, Kartik Mistry wrote:
> gnupg is important package. PTS says:
> "The package is of priority standard or higher, you should really find some
> co-maintainers."
> Suggestion: Can we replace 'should' with 'must'?
Wrong problem - we don't need more maintaine
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:55:51PM +0200, Andrea De Iacovo wrote:
> How do you think a maintainer should manage security issues when he is
> not the package developer? Should he/she either work alone to make
> patches or wait for the upstream patches/relases that solve the bug?
As ever, the best
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 08:43:47PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Could you *please* give me the bug number,
If you can't find a relevant bug you should report a new one (anyone can
do so). See:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
for instructions on how to do this manually or ther
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 04:26:56PM -0400, Kevin Coyner wrote:
> Question: how do I get the newer, correct version of the
> .orig.tar.gz into the archives (replacing the earlier version
> uploaded previously that does not match upstream's)?
You need to give it a new version number - it is not poss
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 01:12:41PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * John Goerzen:
> >> Some of the official, published GIT trees are constantly rebased.
> >> Apparently, the rule is not set in stone.
> > Which ones?
> The pu and (less often) the next branches in the main GIT repository.
Right,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. In this process,
> he will rearrange the changes in smaller logical chunks.
Ah, the impression that has been created on the lists is more that the
patches were being NACKed and
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
