Hello,
On Thu 03 Mar 2022 at 08:44PM +01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:57:26AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>> > PS: I'm currently considering writing up some summary of the bunch
>> > of threads that was born out of my initial mail.
>> >
>> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/
Am Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:57:26AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> > PS: I'm currently considering writing up some summary of the bunch
> > of threads that was born out of my initial mail.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00226.html
>
> Assuming I'm not misreading, th
Hello,
On Thu 03 Mar 2022 at 07:36am +01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Am Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:33:35AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>>
>> I'm sorry to be responding only a month later, but I think there are
>> some reasons why binNEW is not the worst place to be doing these extra
>> chec
Hi Sean,
Am Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:33:35AM -0700 schrieb Sean Whitton:
>
> I'm sorry to be responding only a month later, but I think there are
> some reasons why binNEW is not the worst place to be doing these extra
> checks: packages with SONAME bumps are typically C or C++ projects and
> thes
Hello Steve,
On Wed 09 Feb 2022 at 01:26pm -08, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The fact that the FTP team applies license/copyright review as part of their
> review of source packages has grounding in a number of goals of Debian as a
> project. The existence of a binary NEW queue is also sensible, as t
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:28:16PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:06:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > >> When we treat any of the above just like other RC bugs, we are accepting
> > >> a lower likelihood that the bugs will be found, and also that they will
> > >> b
On February 8, 2022 2:38:48 AM UTC, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:28:16PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> The argument why a package which has an upstream-induced shared
>> library version bump, has to go through the entire NEW gauntlet [...]
>
>I hear your frustration but don
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:28:16PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The argument why a package which has an upstream-induced shared
> library version bump, has to go through the entire NEW gauntlet [...]
I hear your frustration but don't you think that language like "gauntlet"
makes it, uhm, very har
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 07:05:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 07 Feb 2022 at 12:00PM -05, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:06:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >>
> >> When we treat any of the above just like other RC bugs, we are accepting
> >> a lower li
Hello,
On Mon 07 Feb 2022 at 12:00PM -05, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:06:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>
>> When we treat any of the above just like other RC bugs, we are accepting
>> a lower likelihood that the bugs will be found, and also that they will
>> be fixed
On February 7, 2022 6:00:16 PM UTC, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>On Mon, Feb 07 2022, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
>> If we can't do anything else, I suspect we can reduce project a
>> friction a lot of we only subject packages to copyright hazing when it
>> is a NEW source package, and not when there is a
On Mon, Feb 07 2022, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> If we can't do anything else, I suspect we can reduce project a
> friction a lot of we only subject packages to copyright hazing when it
> is a NEW source package, and not when there is a NEW binary package
> caused by some usptream maintainers not bei
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:06:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> When we treat any of the above just like other RC bugs, we are accepting
> a lower likelihood that the bugs will be found, and also that they will
> be fixed
Another part of this discussion which shouldn't be lost is the
probab
Hello Russ,
On Tue 25 Jan 2022 at 01:45pm -08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
>> I just don't think the solution is to ignore copyright or licensing
>> statements.
>
> That's not the goal. The question, which keeps being raised in part
> because I don't think it's gotten a goo
14 matches
Mail list logo
