Bug#889296: ITP: python-molotov -- Spiffy load testing tool in Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ondřej Nový * Package name: python-molotov Version : 1.4 Upstream Author : Tarek Ziade * URL : https://pypi.python.org/pypi/molotov * License : Apache-2 Programming Lang: Python Description : Spiffy load testing t

Bug#889300: ITP: python-aiomeasures -- collect and send metrics to StatsD for Python

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ondřej Nový * Package name: python-aiomeasures Version : 0.5.14 Upstream Author : Xavier Barbosa * URL : https://lab.errorist.xyz/abc/aiomeasures/ * License : Expat Programming Lang: Python Description : collect a

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On 02/01/2018 01:53 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?"): >> As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I think >> it's perfectly fine. I don't think the FTP team should be in the business >> of >> second g

ITP: lsmount -- a simple formatter for /proc/mounts

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Schwarz * Package name: lsmount Version : 0.2.1 Upstream Author : Andreas Schwarz * URL : https://www.lsmount.org * License : ISC Programming Lang: C Description : a simple formatter for /proc/mounts Sin

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 06:44:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:29:49AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > It'd probably make sense to use > > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects for this. > > How would that help? It would at least make it possible to see the

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 02:01:38AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, February 03, 2018 08:20:02 AM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Making RM requests as visible as orphaned packages > > (e.g. in a weekly debian-devel post) would help here. > > So your in favor of shaming DDs to improve their beh

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 06:04:42PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > We don't need yet another process, if you want to get rid of a package > you can open an RFA bug or orphan it Orphaned packages tend to be maintained better than many of those which have an alleged maintainer. The O status shouldn't

Re: ITP: lsmount -- a simple formatter for /proc/mounts

Am 03.02.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Andreas Schwarz: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Andreas Schwarz > > * Package name: lsmount > Version : 0.2.1 > Upstream Author : Andreas Schwarz > * URL : https://www.lsmount.org > * License : ISC > Programming

Bug#889516: ITP: el-ixir -- two-player board game with randomness

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Adam Borowski * Package name: el-ixir Version : 3.0 Upstream Author : me * URL : https://github.com/kilobyte/el-ixir * License : GPL2+ Programming Lang: Pascal Description : two-player board game with randomness

Bug#889520: ITP: golang-github-disintegration-imaging -- Simple Go image processing package

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Anthony Fok * Package name: golang-github-disintegration-imaging Version : 1.3.0-1 Upstream Author : Grigory Dryapak * URL : https://github.com/disintegration/imaging * License : Expat Programming Lang: Go Description

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 01:25:14AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 12:39:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right? > > > > This doesn't

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 11:07:37PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 06:04:42PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > and/or open an rc bug > > This sounds like an abuse to me. Why would it be? You're always allowed to open a bug with "serious" severity under the "in the opinion of