On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:36:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> While I have my gripes with the DAM process, I don't blame the holder(s)
> of that position for some developers in the past having proven
> untrustworthy. The DAM should not be embarrassed by having let in
> someone who also foole
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> I would much prefer the current system where the elected
>> DPL has the absolute power over the delegates.
> (In fact, even in theory your statement is incorrect, as a review of the
> Co
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:03:08PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Where did this "full speed" expectation come from? Yes, it slows down the
> > process a bit, but in general this is not a big problem.
>
> It comes from the people wh
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I would much prefer the current system where the elected
> DPL has the absolute power over the delegates.
Oh, is *that* what the current system is? I thought it was in actual
fact quite different. ;-)
(In fact, even in theory your
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> er, we have a leader, and he has a delegate, the DAM. The DPL and the
> DAM are those who can change who the DAM is, through normal
> functions.
Well, that's the theory, anyway...
--
G. Branden Robinson| Exer
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:21:59PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But he /does/ do the job - people who are trusted to be Debian
> developers end up in that state and as yet, nobody who plainly shouldn't
> have been in Debian seems to have got in, which is a good sign.
Well, what about the people
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:08:42PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 09:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > * (Nathanael Nerode)
> >
> > | I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
> > | in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 09:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * (Nathanael Nerode)
>
> | I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
> | in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might be
> | perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any effect anyway! If the
> | D
* (Nathanael Nerode)
| I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
| in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might be
| perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any effect anyway! If the
| DPL *asked* for volunteers, that might be different.
But would th
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Someone who enters Debian is in a position to upload a package that
>> could backdoor a very large number of machines. Attention to detail at
>> the DAM stage is *more* important than pretty much any other
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What's the alternative?
>
>A more responsive DAM, one that has time for the tasks that the job
>requires. This would reduce the wait time for DAM approval and remove
>the need for "special treatment".
Ye
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:57:51PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | An NM can do little more if he sees a problem in the Debian way of
> | doing things.
>
> You can't change a system from the outside.
Actually that's not true. The mere observation of a system will change
it. Jamie, by j
>> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...
> I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
> adopting the package?
But Ted T'so could be his sponsor now that he has hijacked judy.
I've cc-ed Eduardo Cermeño as I think he's not on this list yet.
Act
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:20:57AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> So, who does DAM report to?
In actual fact, no one in particular.
> Who can do something about this extremely long wait?
Theoretically, the DPL.
--
G. Branden Robinson| "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 23:25 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
>> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
>> > ITA: judy
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 07:23:55PM +0200, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > No, you've been waiting 188 days (as of today) for DAM according to:
>
> Hm, there are two possibilities:
>
> a) I'm blind
> b) You're wrong
Ahh I'm indeed wrong, misread the year both times. You have amazing
patience if you
> No, you've been waiting 188 days (as of today) for DAM according to:
Hm, there are two possibilities:
a) I'm blind
b) You're wrong
because...
> 2002-01-04. I'm only referring to the time since the application was
its... *January*2002* and today is *July*2003* - its about year and half.
R
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 05:06:45PM +0200, Robert J?rdens wrote:
> Oh guys. I'm waiting some 500 days now. I think that's a record (the
> current is around 470). And I'm still working and contributing. Some
> nice other DDs stepped forward and wrote mails to the DAM but that
> didn't cause anything
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Oh guys. I'm waiting some 500 days now. I think that's a record (the
current is around 470). And I'm still working and contributing. Some nice
other DDs stepped forward and wrote mails to the DAM but that didn't cause
anything.
Robert.
As of today, I've been awai
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
> >
> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> > ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dyna
Joshua Kwan wrote:
> > >svgalib (#173471), orphaned 205 days ago
> > > Description: Console SVGA display libraries
> > Of all those people, someone surely has an interest in this. Or
> > perhaps it's time to just drop this crash-inducing security-scary
> > package?
>
> This one kind
Hi, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> As of today, I've been awaiting
> DAM approval now for 155 days, with no end to the wait in sight. I've
> already adopted one orphaned package (Jabber) and made significant
> improvements to it. However, the 150+ day wait for DAM approval has
> deterred me from look
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[junit-freenet (#165504), orphaned 264 days ago]
When I look at the cvs, two classes have been commited 8 month ago, the
other 23 month ago!..
I will adopt this package but I won't upload a new version. I have asked
for its removal instead (#200949). Let's see which other us
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
>
> Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic
Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...
Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
>>Packages wrote:
>> >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
>> > Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arr
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:15:31PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> > Packages wrote:
> > >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> > > Description: C
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
> >py-xmlrpc (#161224), orphaned 296 days ago
> > Description: Implementation of the XML-RPC protocol for Python
>
> Let me guess.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
> >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> > Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
> > Reverse Depe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
> >gnome-objc (#165642), orphaned 263 days ago
> > Description: objective-c bindings for gtk/gnome (obs.)
> > Reverse Depends:
> But apparently I was under the wrong impression about which branch of
> Emacs development was going to be released. I committed calc to what
> was HEAD at the time, and I thought that was going to become 21.3, but
> there was a different branch slated for release. Anyways, calc will be
> in 21.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 11-Jul-03, 02:21 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.
>
> Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
> package be removed
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:34:23PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> So, you mean, this is not the package our users should be looking at
> when they search for a VoIP application? It's not only orphaned but
> not even used? *HINT* *HINT*
It would be nice to see some popularity-contest data
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 03:13, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I use this package, and am interested in adopting it, except
> that I note that Colin Walters states that:
>
> > I am orphaning the calc package; it is now included in the GNU Emacs
> >
> > CVS, and will be in the coming
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:34:23PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
> > > > Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.
> >
> > > I'd thought there'd be more people int
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
> package be removed. What's so hard about it?
I wish it would be that easy. I haven't read the thread, but I'm
willing to bet someone has already declared me
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
> > > Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.
>
> > I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of thing...
>
> There's newer, vastly more widely impleme
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
> > Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.
> I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of thing...
There's newer, vastly more widely implemented stan
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I can't believe that the QA people can say, with a straight face,
> that they are willing to maintain this pile of dung until someone
> shows up. If we have so many maintainers and there are more at the
> burg's doors pili
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >py-xmlrpc (#161224), orphaned 296 days ago
> > Description: Implementation of the XML-RPC protocol for Python
>
> Let me guess... the snake lovers came up with something better?
py-xmlrpc is integrated into the Python
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >wavtools (#155263), orphaned 342 days ago
> > Description: WAV play, record, and compression
>
> Just like sox! Not really...
Well, wavtools is a pile of crap, as detailed by Daniel Kobras in
#97589. I just filed for its removal.
Steve Greenland wrote:
> Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
> in a stable release. At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP
> packages for removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see
> if we can inspire some reaction.
Good idea! An even bet
On 11-Jul-03, 02:21 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.
Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
package be removed. What's so hard about it?
I suppose there might be an issue the original ma
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >junit-freenet (#165504), orphaned 264 days ago
> > Description: basic reimplementation of the JUnit unit testing
> > framework
>
> Ah... Java...
>From the author:
This is a basic reimplementation of the JUnit unit
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >docbook-to-man (#154590), orphaned 347 days ago
> > Description: Converter from DocBook SGML into roff -man macros
> > Reverse Depends: gtk-doc-tools
>
> If gtk-doc-tools depends on this, perhaps the GTK+ fol
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >g5 (#165500), orphaned 264 days ago
> > Description: gtk-based 5-in-a-row game
>
> Not an attractive one?
It's still gtk1 and uses O and X characters to display the pieces,
so "not attractive" is probably the correct description.
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> > Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
> > Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev
> I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...
Iirc (but I only fol
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:49:46 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>> calc (#175399), orphaned 186 days ago Description: An advanced
>> calculator and mathematical tool for Emacs Reverse Depends:
>> riece-ndcc
> Maybe the maintainer of riece-ndcc cares about this?
I use
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I won't apologize for the long email. When I started writing this I
> hoped it would be rather short. The fact that it isn't only tells me
> that I was right -- about two years ago. I can't believe that the QA
> people ca
Hi folks,
I won't apologize for the long email. When I started writing this I
hoped it would be rather short. The fact that it isn't only tells me
that I was right -- about two years ago. I can't believe that the QA
people can say, with a straight face, that they are willing to maintain
th
50 matches
Mail list logo
