Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't think so. Dinstall would reject any new upstream release.
>> Approvals would only apply to t-p-u just like it is done currently.
>
> Umm. So no new debian native packages? Even though those are
Debian native packages are someway a sp
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
>> quite painful.
>
> Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and
testing at the same time.
--
Jérôme
Ingo Juergensmann [u] wrote on 22/10/2004 18:35:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:13:46PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Because they have set up and maintain the buildd network.
Yes, nice, well done, thank them for their initial work, but it seems as if
it's up for others now to take over that job, becaus
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:04:32 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:44AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>> Here's an idea I just had about apt-proxy/apt-cacher NG. Maybe this
>> could be interesting, maybe it's just crap. Your call.
> My position on specia
> "Chris" == Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Hmm, seems you are talking about version 1, which has been
Chris> rewritten. The new version isn't bug free yet but it does
Chris> fix several problems. It doesn't use wget.
It would appear apt-proxy v2 isn't in Debian
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:45:54PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > "Chris" == Chris Halls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chris> Hmm, seems you are talking about version 1, which has been
> Chris> rewritten. The new version isn't bug free yet but it does
> Chris> fix several problems.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Not true. People were mostly twiddling their thumbs. Only a small
>>> subset of people can actually help in fixing RC bugs.
>
>> Are you talking about skills?
>
> Yes. Recently, I tried fixing a selinux issue with
...
> Now, I have time
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:41:09PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Well, they can't go into /usr/bin, they are part of the library.
> However, for some reason upstream decided to put the python equivalent
> of a main() in some of the files that make up the library.
That's a reasonable thing to do
To: Purchase dept.
Dear Sir,
How are you? we're very glad to know you from internet.
Re: surfynol 104
Are your company use this product? are you imported from USA company. now our
company can supply this products, our price is very very cheaper than them.
Maybe
our price is half of the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Testing scripts are a gatekeeper against mistakes from unstable.
>> Upload debian-specific changes to unstable doesn't necessarily mean
>> there won't be side effects that shall not enter testing.
>
> Why not just leave freeze testing, and crea
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 05:10:26AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> >>Because they have set up and maintain the buildd network.
> >Yes, nice, well done, thank them for their initial work, but it seems as if
> >it's up for others now to take over that job, because they obviously
> >failing continuousl
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 06:39:20AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Are you saying that technical choices do not contribute to the success
> >> of Canonical? For instance, deciding to target the distribution at
> >> most popular architectures only?
> > I
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that technical choices do not contribute to the success
>> of Canonical? For instance, deciding to target the distribution at
>> most popular architectures only?
>
> Supporting a reduced rang
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Nonetheless, you won't deny it makes things significantly slower.
>
> By saying that it makes a negligible difference, he *did* deny that it makes
> things significantly slower.
I forgot to add "in Debian". No need to be harsh.
--
Jérôme Marant
ht
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:35:11PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Nonetheless, you won't deny it makes things significantly slower.
>> By saying that it makes a negligible difference, he *did* deny that it makes
>> things significantly slower.
> I fo
On Oct 22, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Canonical work because they consist of a small set of people that work
> together and who don't let egos get in the way. They work because they
> have a strong leader who provides firm direction. They work because they
> don't have the flaws
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I forgot to add "in Debian". No need to be harsh.
>
> I'm not sure why you think it's harsh of me to refute a bald,
> unsubstantiated assertion about what someone else believes -- which is what
> your comment is, with or without the "in Debian". If Co
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
> Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and
> testing at the same time.
This is exactly what happened
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
>
>> Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and
>> testing at
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:30:36 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I will add this support to discover2 as well, since it currently suffers
> from the same problem as discover1 with respect to blacklisting modules
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:56:45AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oh, it would be easy for me to break the tetex-packages (and cause lots
> > of FTBFS bugs) just by applying all the great ideas about improved
> > packaging that I have in mind. No upstrea
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
> >> quite painful.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
>
> Probably because you need m
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: nokryptia
Version : 1.3
Upstream Author : Roel Derickx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.tuxmobil.org/nokryptia.html
* License : GPL
Description : Make MP3 files accessible to Nokia 5510
Nokia's 5510
#include
> > Some improvements have already been proposed by Eduard Bloch and
> > Adrian Bunk: freezing unstable while keeping testing.
>
> Jerome, please, you could have asked me. I prepare an internal GR draft
> for exactly this issue, but it is to be made public on the day of the
> release, a
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
>>> quite painful.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
> Probably because you nee
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:10:26 +0200, Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ingo Juergensmann [u] wrote on 22/10/2004 18:35:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:13:46PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>
>>> Because they have set up and maintain the buildd network.
>> Yes, nice, well done, thank them fo
#include
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 12:27:03AM]:
> >> it. This is how we fix problems in Debian: hide them, then propose
> >> General Resolutions.
>
> > And your point is..?
>
> That a GR on technical issues is moronic?
Who declares them as "technical issues"?
> > different
On Oct 23, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ABSTRACT
You are trying to force developers to work on item x, which they dislike,
by forcing them to not work on item y, which they like more. You are
apparently oblivious to the fact that most developers will probably
spend their time on item
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting tim
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Again, are you volunteering to go out and learn how to do it?
> Or is this yet another time wasting rant?
>
>> Heck, If I were a DD, I would be glad to help whereever needed. The
>
> Ah. Just a spectator, booing and hissing at the people who
> have sto
> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> doing the work /first/ is the obvious way of demonstrating that the offer
> will actually get followed up;
... assuming that there's any work that *can* be done without having
access.
Case in point: I would very much like to set up the required buildd
environments on t
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Secondly, buildd's do
> not work with experimental.
That can be fixed quite easily. In fact, my own (personal) buildds do it.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> In this respect, I think that Testing was a bad solution. A pseudo
> solution for mixed social/technical problems that have been declared as
> technical problems and the solution became a disaster.
Actually, I disagree. The social problem of "people don't like it when we
Le Sam 23 Octobre 2004 02:18, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
> Since i have not received any answer since Oct 5th, i prepare to
> hijack Basket's ITP in 2 days' time barring
> answer from the OP (101 days in preparation)
>
> I believe that Basket is an useful application to have in Debian, and
> will t
El sÃb, 23-10-2004 a las 12:56 +0200, Eduard Bloch escribiÃ:
[...]
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing-security. See
>the last part of the paper for details.
> - ab
* Matthias Urlichs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041023 23:00]:
> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Secondly, buildd's do
> > not work with experimental.
> That can be fixed quite easily. In fact, my own (personal) buildds do it.
Actually, I'm also building experimental packages, for mips, hppa, sparc
an
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> "You want to help? Start by buying your own mips machine!" isn't going to
> cut it. Besides, I already (and gladly) did that, for m68k.
You don't need to do that. There're plenty of machines available - albeit
outside the debian.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:27:25PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Wesley W. Terpstra dijo [Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:59:36PM +0200]:
> > At this point my question is only academic; the pure-gcc in main,
> > icc-prebuilt in contrib solution seems to solve my concerns just as well.
>
> I have only one co
Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> You don't need to do that. There're plenty of machines available - albeit
> outside the debian.org domain...
Ingo, this is about the *security* autobuilders. There's a reason why
Debian cannot do that with machines it doesn't control.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:01:46AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > You don't need to do that. There're plenty of machines available - albeit
> > outside the debian.org domain...
> Ingo, this is about the *security* autobuilders. There's a reason why
> Debian cannot do that with machines it does
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
>> >> quite painful.
>> >
>> >Could you elaborate o
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
>> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>>
>> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
>> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>>sync
Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Funny. Arrakis were used heavily in the past for security builds as
> well. Otherweise I have no idea where all those security team logins on
> arrakis come from?
>
I'd assume that there's a *slight* difference between "somebody, who
doesn't (necessarily) have any p
Hi, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Very few bug reports from testing users are of any value at all. They
> usually either report some transient dependency problem that the
> maintainer can't fix anyway, or report something that has already been
> fixed in the unstable package.
You can't fix *this* depend
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:21:28AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Funny. Arrakis were used heavily in the past for security builds as
> > well. Otherweise I have no idea where all those security team logins on
> > arrakis come from?
> I'd assume that there's a *slight* difference between "some
Manoj Srivastava [u] wrote on 23/10/2004 21:43:
I must admit I thought something similar: Why the hell are there
only two people who know how to do it, when two people doesn't seem
to be enough?
Are you volunteering to go out and better educate yourself to
take on this work?
You know perfectly
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> >> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> >> - drop
[BugScan reporter]
> Bug stamp-out list for May 14 06:01 (CST)
>
> Total number of release-critical bugs: 565
> Number that will disappear after removing packages marked [REMOVE]: 1
> Number that have a patch: 79
> Number that have a fix prepared and waiting to upload: 22
> Number that are being i
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:40:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's
> >>> quite painful.
> >>
> >> C
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:52:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> > >> thread already. I suggest to do it in
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Debian Testing is not stable and is not mature. It is full of shitty bugs
> (let me define this term as name for ugly bugs that bother the users but do
> not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to touch
> package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such b
> And without starting a flamewar, ...
Yep, I thought it looked too good to be true.
b.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:23:48 +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > And why not, instead of freezing unstable, make it build against
> > testing, when er try to freeze testing ?
>
> Libraries. If you build agai
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I think you're right... it's not about getting work done, it's about
> politics and a orwellian "all users are equal, DDs are more equal" nonsense.
> With every day passing by, it seems even more clearly to me that Debian has
> lost its basics and
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some
> depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the
> driver can't go in main.
Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the
device? If the to
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some
>> depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the
>> driver can't go in main.
>
> Is this the case even if the firmwar
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:40:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, J?r?me Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:46:32 +1000, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:40:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, J?r?me Marant
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>> Okay, that's
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:28:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is a fallacy. In the past, when we did freeze unstable,
> it never forced me to do anything but twidle my thumbs for months
> until things got moving again. The reason that freezing unstable did
> not make me fix any
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:57:15 +0200, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> include
> * Romain Francoise [Fri, Oct 22 2004, 06:04:12PM]:
>> > Is the entire world on crack and I just failed to notice until
>> > now?
>>
>> Don't worry, we're preparing an internal General Resolution to
>> addre
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:36:13 +0200, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> include
> * Jérôme Marant [Fri, Oct 22 2004, 10:20:51AM]:
>> Some improvements have already been proposed by Eduard Bloch and
>> Adrian Bunk: freezing unstable while keeping testing.
> Jerome, please, you could have
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > Question to the security team: What's holding back security support for
> > sarge? (This is not a complaint - I'm just curious)
>
> It still (as written on -project one or two weeks ago) lacks the
> infrastructure as in a worki
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:49:26 -0500, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:09:53PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Rob Browning wrote:
>> > If I added a new sign/encrypt sub-key to my Debian key, would I
>> > be able to use that to s
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:44AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Here's an idea I just had about apt-proxy/apt-cacher NG. Maybe this
> could be interesting, maybe it's just crap. Your call.
My position on special-purpose proxy caches for APT is that general-purpose
proxy caches (like squid) see
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:22:12PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Can this go into main?
This risks serious practical problems. If your package is routinely built
with a compiler other than the Debian default, problems which would arise
from doing so can go easily undetected. Someday, someo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:16:17AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
> then there is a bug in one of the two compilers.
First, both of the compilers involved are known to have bugs.
Second, this is not necessarily true.
> An NMU for a wishlist bug is questionable IMHO. The bug report for
> hylafax-client is vague; it says that there are (tiny) differences
> between "default" and "ISO A4" in the pagesizes file but fails to
> explain why that's a problem.
>
> Rather than NMU just for this bug, you could try to cont
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable
>> freeze)?
>
> If you freeze unstable anyway, you are blocking the updates --
> and thus have all the problems of this style of interrupted
> development. If unstable is froze
[Don Armstrong]
> Is there anything that those of us who are not these two people can
> do to help with this, short of not bothering them about it?
I'm not sure how to help on the infrastructure.
But if you want to help with securing sarge/testing, you can help Joey
Hess and the rest of us checki
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:34:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Is there anything that those of us who are not these two people can do
> to help with this, short of not bothering them about it?
I'm not sure where the "two people" figure comes from; I assume it's
supposed to be referring to James
Am Fr, den 22.10.2004 schrieb Eduard Bloch um 22:26:
> #include
> * D. Starner [Fri, Oct 22 2004, 11:31:10AM]:
> Or do you really believe that mega-threads help much? Do you really
> think that Canonical/Ubuntu is more successfull because they discuss
> more and let everyone publish its 0.02$ that
we goofed
update-menus already has a mechanism to avoid running too many times
from the authors:
>It does not work this way. When update-menus run, it check whether the
>dpkg
>lock is taken. In this case it check if the menu lock is taken. If yes,
>it just quit. if not, it take the menu lock and w
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:04:41 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable
>>> freeze)?
>>
>> If you freeze unstable anyway, you are blocking the updates -- and
>> thus have all t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: multipath-tools
Version : 0.3.3
Upstream Author : christophe varoqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://christophe.varoqui.free.fr/
* License : LGPL, GPL
Description : Command-line utilities for administerin
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:43:27AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > An NMU for a wishlist bug is questionable IMHO. The bug report for
> > hylafax-client is vague; it says that there are (tiny) differences
> > between "default" and "ISO A4" in the pagesizes file but fails to
> > explain why that
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: atlantis
Version : 0.1.3
Upstream Author : Ali Akcaagac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.akcaagac.com/index_atlantis.html
* License : GPL (?)
Description
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the problems
>> > was that many updates were blocked by that, and once the freeze was
>>
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you saying that technical choices do not contribute to the success
>> of Canonical? For instance, deciding to target the distribution at
>> most popular architectures only?
>
> In my experience as both a Canonical employee and a Debian developer,
> t
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:20:51 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Debian developers, on the contrary, run unstable and rarely run
>> testing, which means that they don't really know about the shape of
>> what they release.
>
> Th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
w
>> I think it would be marginal. After all, the experimental
>> distribution does exit for this purpose and nonetheless, people do
>> not neglect unstable.
>
> I do not think you understand what the experimental
> distribution is, and how it is
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:41:45PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> If I added a new sign/encrypt sub-key to my Debian key, would I be
> able to use that to sign and upload packages? Would the Debian
> keyserver and the Debian upload infrastructure be able to handle it?
Yes. I use exactly this se
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
hi there,
i don't believe i raised an ITP [if i did it was a mistake] but
instead should have raised one of those notifications that the
basket _should_ be packaged. [can't remember what it's called].
RFP. You can submit one of those with 'reportbug'.
Don't worry
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>>> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the problems
>>> > was that many update
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041023 12:40]:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:43:27AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > An NMU for a wishlist bug is questionable IMHO. The bug report for
> > > hylafax-client is vague; it says that there are (tiny) differences
> > > between "default" and "IS
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't think so. Dinstall would reject any new upstream release.
>> Approvals would only apply to t-p-u just like it is done
>> currently.
>
> Oh, it would be easy for me to break the tetex-packages (and cause lots
> of FTBFS bugs) just by applying all
Hi, martin f krafft wrote:
> I will have to think about the premature EOF.
It's a file. Files don't have "premature" EOFs, so you need some sort of
lock, which in turn requires a (non-shell ;-) script.
In other words, this rapidly approaches the complexity of
apt-proxy-or-whatever.
--
Matthias
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:54:17 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> Before "testing", the RM used to freeze unstable and people were
>>> working on fixing bugs. There were pretest cycles with bug
>>> horizons,
>>
>> Not true. People were mostly twiddling their thumbs. Only a small
>
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:23:48 +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And why not, instead of freezing unstable, make it build against
> testing, when er try to freeze testing ?
Libraries. If you build against a library version that is no
longer in unstable, then you may have issu
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:36:26 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>>> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the
>>>
Wesley W. Terpstra dijo [Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:59:36PM +0200]:
> This slight difference in wording sounds to me like I would indeed be able
> to include prebuilt object files, so long as the package could be built
> without them. Is that correct?
>
> The actual text in policy is:
> * must not re
Your message didn't have a Package: line at the start (in the
pseudo-header following the real mail header), or didn't have a
pseudo-header at all.
This makes it much harder for us to categorise and deal with your
problem report. Please _resubmit_ your report to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and tell us which
92 matches
Mail list logo
