On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:15:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That being said, sources which just sprout new binary packages
>> really should be passed through NEW automagically.
> I made a foolish mistake not too long ago that would never
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That being said, sources which just sprout new binary packages really
> should be passed through NEW automagically.
I made a foolish mistake not too long ago that would never have been
caught by this mechanism; I was most grateful for Anthony Towns
w
* Matthias Urlichs
| Hi, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
|
| > In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all
|
| Umm...
| - Submit package with copyrighted stuff
| - wait a few days
| - watch the pants being sued off SPI/Debian
|
| Likely? I don't know. Too dangerous? IMHO yes.
Hi, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all
Umm...
- Submit package with copyrighted stuff
- wait a few days
- watch the pants being sued off SPI/Debian
Likely? I don't know. Too dangerous? IMHO yes.
That being said, sources which just sprou
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:50:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all (I agree
> > that a delay of a few days is sensible to give us time to react to the
> > worst problem cases.)
>
> Unfortunately reality isn't so simple. In prac
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 06.39, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There is another problem with NEW: The US laws.
>
> Untill a package has been processed through NEW and a mail send to
> some goverment agency Debian runs risk of violating the crypto export
> laws.
I've already proposed this: if si
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> IMHO, Debian has a serious double-problem here and needs to attack it.
>> ftp-masters should, as I understand the role, be a purely administrative
>> function: keep the archive ru
Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wanted: a policy document that draws the lines (there will always be grey
> areas, yes. But they can be made smaller than they are right now), with
> processes that ensure that handling critical cases does not take 2 months
> or more.
Yay for mor
Maybe new versions of packages already in the archive that depend upon
packages which are NEW
could somehow signal or automatically raise the priority of those said
packages waiting to get in.
I guess it's a common case, specially for new libraries, since it can
potentially hold important new
f
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:50:05PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > IMHO, Debian has a serious double-problem here and needs to attack it.
> > ftp-masters should, as I understand the role, be a purely administrative
> > functi
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> IMHO, Debian has a serious double-problem here and needs to attack it.
> ftp-masters should, as I understand the role, be a purely administrative
> function: keep the archive running. No policy decisions should be made by
> f
k again to
> the pointless hot-babe discussion which drills to "should Debian be a
> software repository of every free software project written on earth,
> regardless of its state and value?"
Risking another hot-babesque thread...
-> not every package should enter D
12 matches
Mail list logo
