There has been a lot of descension over the past couple of weeks about
DI and what it could do to be better.
I think it is important that I join that debate with a couple of
requirements for any replacement / enhancement:
(1) Must work on all architectures supported by Debian
(2) Must work
Theodore Ts'o writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository
format"):
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:59:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > How do you update to a new upstream version while preserving your
> > delta queue ? Just git merge with an upstream seems like it might
> > work som
On 6/2/19 3:39 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 21:04 +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> [...]
>> However, without an HPE donation or discount, we are much more likely to
>> follow a less expensive approach: pairs of 2U servers with local
>> storage, etc. Still not cheap but not multipl
Hello Debian Developers,
Debian provides more than 51000 packages. From those packages, some are
appropriate for every ages, and some others are
only for specific age groups for some reasons.
In order to inform to users, especially parents, about potentially
objectionable content in Debian pac
Bagas Sanjaya writes:
> Based on above, what are your opinions/thoughts/positions about Content
> Rating System in Debian?
It sounds like a whole ton of work to get a useful amount of coverage (not
to mention bothering upstreams with questionnaires that I suspect many of
them would find irritati
Hi,
what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
"testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
happens.
Related to that I would like to be able to write something like
d
Russ Allbery:
It sounds like a whole ton of work to get a useful amount of coverage (not
to mention bothering upstreams with questionnaires that I suspect many of
them would find irritating -- I certainly would with my upstream hat on),
and I'm not clear on the benefit. Do you have some reason t
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:08:22AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
> "testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
> codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
> happens.
A
what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
"testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
happens.
Hi Ansgar,
Regarding suite names (stable, testing, and unstable), ther
9 matches
Mail list logo
