On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
>>> that should be in the upload tool, IMHO. A unixy
On Tue, Nov 24 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
>> that should be in the upload tool, IMHO. A unixy tool does one job,
>> not two.
>
> Counter example: everybody sh
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
> that should be in the upload tool, IMHO. A unixy tool does one job,
> not two.
Counter example: everybody should pipe his .changes through
debchange. Still the chec
On 2009-11-23, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> So for that, yes, you want to think about the dput solution. Which would
> have the nice added benefit to actually save people form uploading and
> wasting bandwidth and time.
Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing that
should be i
> I've noticed that for DELAYED/XX uploads, the lintian rejects are
> triggered not when the package hits DELAYED/XX, but rather when the
> package eventually hits the archive. The annoyance of this is that the
> uploader losts "focus" on the specific fix.
> Any chance/plan to fix this so that li
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> we are turning on lintian based autorejects within the next few days.
> This means that packages failing a defined set of lintian tags will no
> longer be accepted into the archive, but get rejected immediately.
> This sh
Steve Langasek writes:
> I've put together a hand-rolled test package that demonstrates this:
> http://people.debian.org/~vorlon/test-package_1_all.deb
> lintian reports the 'wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid' error for this
> package, but you'll see that unpacking it results in a file
> /usr/share
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
>>> Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
>>> ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being
>>> s
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11921 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> E: ftp-master: debian-rules-is-symlink
>> Not a requirement that's derived from Policy at all. If you think this is
>> important to require for all packages due to the side effect on lintian's
>> ability to do further checking, p
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> E: ftp-master: section-is-dh_make-template
>>> Sections in source packages have minimal impact; the section that matters is
>>> the one specified in the archive override. There's no reason that the
>>> inval
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> > Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
> > ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being
> > static, but there doesn't a
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm not complaining about you filing bugs on *my* packages. I'm
> complaining about a mass bug filing on *any* packages, using standards
> that have not previously been approved by the project, because *doing
> so skews priorities for the project as a
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer
>>> visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first,
>>> this tag is in nonfatal.
>> I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed.
>
> Yes, a
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > Do you understand why people are getting annoyed ?
>
>> They have a lot of bloody gall to be annoyed thatpeople file
>> bugs about serious policy violations that they have
>> Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer
>> visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first,
>> this tag is in nonfatal.
> I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed.
Yes, and I really like that I do not have to do this my
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Do you understand why people are getting annoyed ?
> They have a lot of bloody gall to be annoyed thatpeople file
> bugs about serious policy violations that they have signed up to
> follow, and neglected in their pac
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>
>> when we do add such a lintian check to the blacklist, we also file serious
>> bugs against those packages in the archive; and aggressively work to either
>> fix the packages,
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance,
>> dir-or-file-in-var-www instantly fatal without following the usual
>> mass-bug-filing procedure. If you'd like mass bugs to be filed based
>> on these lintian tags but don't have time, let me know
> I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance, dir-or-file-in-var-www
> instantly fatal without following the usual mass-bug-filing procedure. If
> you'd like mass bugs to be filed based on these lintian tags but don't have
> time, let me know if I can help (I can't promise to deal with a
Le Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> when we do add such a lintian check to the blacklist, we also file serious
> bugs against those packages in the archive; and aggressively work to either
> fix the packages, or remove them from the archive.
It is very uncl
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:06:25PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If you do an NMU you hopefully will look at the lintian output of your
> upload. With old or hardly maintained packages that will be complicated
> because you have to look at the lintian messages for the unmodified
> packages and f
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do
>> > not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors
>> > (according to the proposed w
* Stefano Zacchiroli [091103 17:32]:
> For packages that are now in the archive with lintian errors that would
> have prevented them to be uploaded, you're right. However, as a corner
> case, you can imagine a new lintian check added 10 years from now, and
> that check be used to refuse uploads. A
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:00:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Surely the answer to that question is obvious: fix the bugs Lintian is
>> finding that prevent upload. They're the equivalent of RC bugs (
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do
> > not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors
> > (according to the proposed wording). I'm not sure it is worth though,
>
>
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I don't think it is that simple. For once, we need to refine
> some of our guidelines (that's the easy part). Devref §5.11.1 authorizes
> to upload only changes that fix RC bugs older than X days, so if lintian
> is complaining about issues not cor
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I reproduce here the one from Brian May, which I think is very
> relevant and was asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
>
>
> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091102084201.ga15...@microcomaustralia.com.au
>
>
"John H. Robinson, IV" writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Surely the answer to that question is obvious: fix the bugs Lintian is
>> finding that prevent upload. They're the equivalent of RC bugs (not
>> precisely the same, but similar), which if you're already doing an NMU
>> are certainly fair ga
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > In addition, some important questions are left unanswered. I reproduce
> > here the one from Brian May, which I think is very relevant and was
> > asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
>
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/msgid-sea
Charles Plessy writes:
> In addition, some important questions are left unanswered. I reproduce
> here the one from Brian May, which I think is very relevant and was
> asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091102084201.ga15...@microcoma
Le Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 08:49:40AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I'm not seeing where he's doing any significant harm
By killing the discusssion with a flood of emails. Here are the top posters for
this month in this thread:
3 Charles Plessy (+1 with this one)
3 Michael Banck
On 02/11/09 at 12:10 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I'm fine with letting ftpmasters take that decision. However, they
> > should consult the project before adding new tags (mail to -devel: "We
> > are thinking of adding those new tags to our list, comments?" instead of
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> By my interpretation, I don't think that the TC has any authority
> here since the ftp-masters are DPL delegates and not individual
> maintainers.
The intersection of §5.1.1 (DPL delegation) and §6.1.1 (CTTE decides
technical policy) is kind of unchar
Luk Claes writes:
> Exactly, I have only a limited amount of time and don't want to spend it
> on demotivating discussions with Manoj about why he uses two standards.
I really think the best solution to this is to stop having demotivating
discussions with Manoj, particularly in this case where I
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> I was splitting the issues in two sub-issues actually: (1) being sure
> that lintian "E:" messages are only those coming from violated "must"
> requirements, (2) deciding which among them are upload blockers.
> I confess I was pretty much assuming that lintian mainta
On Mon, Nov 02 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Exactly, I have only a limited amount of time and don't want to spend it
> on demotivating discussions with Manoj about why he uses two standards.
> Though just ignoring these is also of no help, so in general I just
> point out when he does it (probably no
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Nov 02 11:40, Luk Claes wrote:
>> For the actual matter at hand I think it's very wrong to do a MBF
>> without going through d-devel for several reasons:
>
>>
>
> Otoh, this is a slightly special case, since they are things which are
> causing the package to becom
On Mon Nov 02 11:40, Luk Claes wrote:
> For the actual matter at hand I think it's very wrong to do a MBF
> without going through d-devel for several reasons:
>
Otoh, this is a slightly special case, since they are things which are
causing the package to become non-uploadable. In this case the c
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luk Claes writes:
>
>> As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
>> the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
>> continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and RC bug
>> policy consistent and the Debian
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm fine with letting ftpmasters take that decision. However, they
> should consult the project before adding new tags (mail to -devel: "We
> are thinking of adding those new tags to our list, comments?" instead of
> a mail to -devel saying "We just blocked the following tag
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'd recommend that others do likewise, to get an appropriately large set of
> eyeballs on this change.
Question:
(apologies if this has already been addressed and I missed it)
I want to perform a NMU upload on a package, say to fi
On 01/11/09 at 15:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Adding -qa to Cc ]
>
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
> >
>
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:13:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > So, I revamp a proposal I made in a corner of this thread:
> > Let the QA team decide upon the non overridable lintian errors.
>
> My only concern is that the
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> My only concern is that the ftp archive checks not be used to force changes
> in Policy.
>
> If the set of tags being drawn from is limited to those that are recognized
> as violations of Policy "must" requirements, then I have no opinion on who
> shoul
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:29:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Also, note that the ftp team are at least project delegates, whereas the
> Lintian maintainers are "just" package maintainers. If we have a
> governance problem with the ftp team making this decision, it would be
> even worse if the L
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> who spent over 30 hours checking for and filing 219 bugs against packages
> which violate policy, and is getting somewhat irritated by all the
> kvetching
Thank you for doing this. I've looked at doing it from time to time based
on Lintian results and always shied
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
>> > issues to the top of their todo list?
>>
>> Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken
eally seen that much overlap between the sort of checks that
Lintian is doing and the sort of checks that the QA team has been working
on except at a very high level. But I'd absolutely love to have them
involved if they're interested.
> While I also agree in principle with lintian-ba
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
>> arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
>> serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
>
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>>
>> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
>> somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've
>> marked as rejects are pretty obvious a
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
> > issues to the top of their todo list?
>
> Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken by folks
> in charge of the archive as to what b
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:11PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > (N.B.: this check would fail even in the case of a package with a
> > pre-existing section override in the archive. What's the sense of
> > that?
> > Let the maintainer get the nag mail after the fact telling them to
> > reconcil
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
> arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
> serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
> I do think that the ftp team decides wha
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay
>> > the
>> > release!
>
>> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
>
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>
>> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
>
> So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has
If there are a l
uality assurance”, isn't it?
While I also agree in principle with lintian-based autorejects and
respect the work that has been done for this, I don't think that it fits
the ftp-master job description to take such a decision.
It may be an acceptable change in the role's power but it should
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
> what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
> the maximum a
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
>> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
>
> I have seen him assert in a bug on one package
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
> somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've marked
> as rejects are pretty obvious and easy-to-fix bugs, and I'm not sure why
> the pr
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 15:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Seems to me like there's no point in asking the ftpmasters to come
> up with
> > the source package section name because the package author didn't
> notice
> > and set one before the first upload. Although I do agree that if
> we're
>
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:09:56PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> > N:
> > N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
> > N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
> > N: because other IDs are dyna
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
>> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
> I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed t
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
> > I don't thin
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
> > release!
> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:50:19AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And yet, some FHS violations just seem to be treated as important (#523920),
> while others are more than serious (not being able to upload with some FHS
> violations, which IMO have less consequences...)
Bug #523920 is not an FHS
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
> reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed to that
the package has been "d
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
> > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> > Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
> > ranges; it prohibits relying on user or
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has been
shown in the previous release cycles that putting this in the frame of
Hi,
On Sonntag, 1. November 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's a very positive step forward for the archive as a
> whole to start doing auto-rejects for some major Lintian tags,
I only agree partially. IMO auto-rejects for _introducing_ certain lintian
tags (in sid/exp) is right as it is
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> On behalf of the other four Policy maintainers who aren't Manoj and who
>> so far as I know you don't have personal conflicts with, let me just
>> say "gee, thanks." This is how we can ensure that Policy co
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luk Claes writes:
> > As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> > the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
> > continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and
Luk Claes writes:
> As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> the way he can use them at the moment he needs them.
Even if that were true, it's foolish to think this is a trait specific
to one person. Everyone does this to some degree, and smearing one
person rather
Luk Claes writes:
> As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
> the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
> continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and RC bug
> policy consistent and the Debian Policy will remain not usef
Steve Langasek writes:
> Some problems I find with this list:
> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
> N:
> N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
> N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
> N: because other IDs are dynamica
Hi Manoj,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
> >> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
> >> after being checked individually, and was filed one by o
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
>> numbers o
Cyril Brulebois (01/11/2009):
> Then you probably should read Policy 7.1.1. Individual checks or
> non-automation doesn't make it less massive.
Make it DevRef (thanks, Kumar).
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
>> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
>> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
>> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
>> numbers of false positives, and
Manoj Srivastava (01/11/2009):
> This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
> after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
> manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
> numbers of false positives, and thus these are just bugs fi
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
> release!
People ignoring bugs wilfully a
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>> Hi Manoj,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>>
>> Please respect the
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-f
[ Adding -qa to Cc ]
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
>
> I don't think it's appropriate for the ftp team to add any other
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:17:43AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Can you please consider changing the above naming?
> FWIW the actual reject messages are very clear and do not use these
> terms (which I've changed in Git anyway, pending merge). Thanks.
Thanks a lot for your change!
BTW, in spite o
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be
>> overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
>> enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never ha
Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>
> Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
> d
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
debian-devel.
thanks,
Michael
-
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> > Some problems I find with this list:
>
> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
> what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
> the maximum
* Steve Langasek [091101 11:23]:
> Some problems I find with this list:
I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
the maximum amount of (free) software the primary goal?
> E: ftp-master: copyright-lists
> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
release!
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-re
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be
> overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
> enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never happen.
> In fact, most of th
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Can you please consider changing the above naming?
FWIW the actual reject messages are very clear and do not use these
terms (which I've changed in Git anyway, pending merge). Thanks.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian
Bernd Eckenfels writes:
> you wrote:
>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
> I think packages which had no bug reports before are clearly not too
> buggy to be in Debian.
No bug reports could just be a sign that
In article <87hbtfxwyz@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> you wrote:
> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
I think packages which had no bug reports before are clearly not too buggy
to be in Debian.
Gruss
Bernd
On Sat, Oct 31 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Some examples of tags where I do not consider this reasonable until bugs
>> have been filed:
>> - statically-linked-binary
>> - mknod-in-maintainer-script
>> - debian-rules-not-a-makefile
>> - dir-or-file-in-var-www
>
> Again, +1.
Hi,
On Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 at 15:06:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be
> > overridden.
>
> I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance,
> dir-or-file-in-var-www instantl
On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>
>> On a second read of the proposal, it occurred to me (and a handful of
>> other DDs in private communications agreed) that the above naming choice
>> of "warning" and "error" can be a bit unfortunate. In fact, lintian
>> a
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On a second read of the proposal, it occurred to me (and a handful of
> other DDs in private communications agreed) that the above naming choice
> of "warning" and "error" can be a bit unfortunate. In fact, lintian
> already has its own notion of warning/error and ha
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On a second read of the proposal, it occurred to me (and a handful of
> other DDs in private communications agreed) that the above naming choice
> of "warning" and "error" can be a bit unfortunate. In fact, lintian
> already has its own notion of warning/error and hav
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
