On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:01:12PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:38:56AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > > > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > > > experimental so
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:38:56AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > > experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> > > used for tha
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:05:14AM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > experimental so a package can go into th
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:16:59PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:42:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Because:
> > > > ...
> > > thanks! nice summary.
> > I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as is
> > traditional) but it occurred to me I ought
On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> used for that version) if the main
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:25:44AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> If someone does want to come along and fix the package, having it pass
> >> through NEW again is not a good use of ftpteam time.
> > Sounds like NEW is the problem, not other parts?
>
> Not sure what you mean.
I mean it seems tha
Hello,
On Sun 25 Nov 2018 at 05:41PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> If someone does want to come along and fix the package, having it pass
>> through NEW again is not a good use of ftpteam time.
> Sounds like NEW is the problem, not other parts?
Not sure what you mean. I am saying that we
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:37:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
> >> unstable, if we consider rc-buggy in unstable to be unacceptable. We
> >> do have quite a bit of things in unstable, that are neither getting
> >> fixed, nor
Hello,
On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> used for that version) if
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still th
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:42:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Because:
> > > ...
> > thanks! nice summary.
> I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as is
> traditional) but it occurred to me I ought to send a positive note
> about this:
>
> Thanks for being easy to convinc
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >[..] Compared to REJECT mails:
> > - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent
> > - Discussions in the BTS are better organised
> &
Ian Jackson wrote:
>[..] Compared to REJECT mails:
>
> - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent
> - Discussions in the BTS are better organised
> - Discussions in the BTS can have wider participation
> - Discussions in the BTS are better archived
> - Discussions
Hello,
On Thu 22 Nov 2018 at 11:20AM GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:37:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> What harm are the packages doing sitting in unstable? Distributing them
>> does not have much point, but neither does removing them.
>
> the rather few people working
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Because:
> > ...
>
> thanks! nice summary.
I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> still I think we should only stuff in unstable which is suited for
> testing. So while you have convinced me that it's good to have those
> packages in Debian I now think that expe
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Because:
>
> * Discussions about the RC bugs can be more effectively dealt with
>using our existing discussion mechanisms, including primarily the
>Debian BTS. Compared to REJECT mails:
> - Discussions in the BTS are mor
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> > all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BT
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:37:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> What harm are the packages doing sitting in unstable? Distributing them
> does not have much point, but neither does removing them.
the rather few people working on (fully and partly) automated QA have to
spend brain and cpu cycles o
Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 21 Nov 2018 at 06:19PM GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:57:40PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>>> Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
>>> unstable, if we consider rc-buggy in unstable to be unacceptab
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:29:38PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> > (in that sense I would appreciate packages getting automatically tested
> > (and rejected if needed) before they enter *unstable*, and then again,
> > with stricter automatic t
Quoting Sean Whitton :
On Wed 21 Nov 2018 at 06:19PM GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:57:40PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
unstable, if we consider rc-buggy in unstable to be unacceptable. We
do have
Hello,
On Wed 21 Nov 2018 at 06:19PM GMT, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:57:40PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
>> unstable, if we consider rc-buggy in unstable to be unacceptable. We
>> do have quite a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> (in that sense I would appreciate packages getting automatically tested
> (and rejected if needed) before they enter *unstable*, and then again,
> with stricter automatic tests before they enter testing.)
This sounds to me like what Ubuntu d
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:19:49PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:57:40PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
> > unstable[...]
> I'm all for it.
also with a 3 month delay (instead of the 2 weeks or w
On 2018-11-21 18:47 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 21.11.18 16:56, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> >> all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:57:40PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Before we get there, we should first start autoremoving packages from
> unstable, if we consider rc-buggy in unstable to be unacceptable. We
> do have quite a bit of things in unstable, that are neither getting
> fixed, nor gett
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 15:57, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> > all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS
> > in the conventional way, after AC
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:47:52PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I really like the approach of some ftp-masters to accept a package and then file
rc-issues, if there are some, like adding updated copyright information.
If the copyright info is wrong then it definitely shouldn't be in the
archiv
On 21.11.18 16:56, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
>> all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS
>> in the conventional way, after ACCEPT.
>
> becaus
El miércoles, 21 de noviembre de 2018 12:56:42 -03 Holger Levsen escribió:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> > all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS
> > in the conve
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS
> in the conventional way, after ACCEPT.
because why accept rc-buggy software in the archive (wh
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> > On 2018/10/25 12:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> >>> My main concern here is this: AFAICT this package has b
Hi,
On 21/11/2018 14:56, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Bastian
>
> My apologies in advance for doing this, but another month has passed.
> Another ping from me.
>
> On 2018/10/25 12:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJE
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:56:44PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> > Ping, ftpmaster ?
Please read https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
Of cause lintian errors and warnings are reasons to reject packages.
Overriden ones without proper explanation more so.
> From the original REJECTion emai
Hi Bastian
My apologies in advance for doing this, but another month has passed.
Another ping from me.
On 2018/10/25 12:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
Lumin writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> Lumin writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> > 1. Isn't "incomplete backtrace" a sensible reason to keep debug symbols?
> >Policy said "should" but
Hi Bastian
Sorry, I've just noticed my 'Reply All' email went to ftpmaster@ but
not waldi@, so I assume you missed it.
Please let me (and Lumin) know if you have any further concerns.
Also, there have been two further julia uploads since my last email.
Regards
Graham
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 12:5
Graham Inggs writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> I thought Lumin had made it clear enough that being able to obtain a
> stacktrace from within Julia is actually a feature [1]. One of Julia's
> tests checks this, and hence autopkgtests fail if debug sym
Lumin writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> 1. Isn't "incomplete backtrace" a sensible reason to keep debug symbols?
>Policy said "should" but not "must". Please tell me what I can do in
>order to help improve the s
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:52:41PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> I thought Lumin had made it clear enough that being able to obtain a
> stacktrace from within Julia is actually a feature [1]. One of Julia's
> tests checks this, and hence autopkgtests fail if debug symbols are missing
> from sys.so,
Hi Bastian
I sponsored Lumin's original upload of Julia 1.0.0-1 and worked with him
closely, reviewing the commits leading up to the upload. In the
meantime, Lumin has become a Debian Developer and uploaded the
subsequent versions himself, although still with some input and testing
from me.
Hi Lumin
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +, Lumin wrote:
> 1. Isn't "incomplete backtrace" a sensible reason to keep debug symbols?
>Policy said "should" but not "must". Please tell me what I can do in
>order to help improve the src:julia package to satisfy the requirements?
The ju
Hi Lumin,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 02:40:43PM +, Lumin wrote:
> > What I'm emphasizing here is, the debug info in those shared objects
> > are intensionally kept to preserve a good user experience and
> > avoid increasing maintainance burden.
> >
> > This is the expected backtrace from the cod
hi ftp-master,
Sorry for the noise, but I really care about the package src:julia. And
I started to suspect that ftp-master failed to recieve my last feedback
on the rejection. So I'm re-sending the feedback again, and CCing
-devel to make sure the mail won't get lost.
As of 1.0.0-3 (NEW), this p
45 matches
Mail list logo
