On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 18:48:24 +0200
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 14.07.21 13:47, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Am 14.07.21 um 12:59 schrieb Simon McVittie:
> I do recall that the FTP masters would've been generally open to have
> such an auto-approver (but maybe I'm wrong), but that no-one stepped up
>
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 00:09:32 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I see that the reason is given in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=955349
> 'uses unmaintained libunique'.
>
> Any further comments on what would be required to get this back? Was
> libunique actually broken/a problem, or
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 15:10:42 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover:
> > What I've also said multiple times, is that
> > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
> > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer sc
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release? What is the
> way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches against individual
> packages
> to move their files from /(sbin|bin|lib)/ to /usr/(sbin
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 11:31:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Unfortunately, when the supporters of the merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs
> pushed their approach into the distribution, that meant that package
> stopped being able to ship compatibility symlinks under «/», and those
> needed to be "handled
On 2021-07-20 Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
>> So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release?
>> What is the way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches
>> against individual packages to move their fil
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 13:41 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Isn't this kind of crying over spilt milk? I also wish we never had
> ended up with the buster/bullseye state where both unmerged and
> merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs are fully supported. However there is
> now a huge number of m
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
wrote:
>According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still
>rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of
>dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see
>https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merg
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
> wrote:
>> According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still
>> rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of
>> dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see
>> http
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 15:34 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
> > wrote:
> > > According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can
> > > still rescue their systems
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
[...]
> Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it
anymore, you are not contributing, this is debian-devel@ not debian-rant@,
so please ST
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:51 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
> > Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
>
> Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not
> using it anymore, you are no
On 16200 March 1977, Michael Lustfield wrote:
I do recall that the FTP masters would've been generally open to have
such an auto-approver (but maybe I'm wrong), but that no-one stepped
up
yet to code it up?
A few of us came up with some proof of concept designs/models, but we
ultimately dropp
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still
> use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will
> probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to
> Debian, mainly to Debi
Hi,
> It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC
> overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using
> dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other
> software, like rpm-based used by Fedora or even guix used by GNU?? Or
> perhaps the
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 5:51 p.m., Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
>> Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
>
> Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it
> anymore, you are not cont
Hi,
> Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still
> use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will
> probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to
> Debian, mainly to Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. As long as
> these por
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:
> Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would
> give
> a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development.
> Later on I was working on a plugin that treated huge amount of data.
> So
> I i
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 10:07 p.m., Brian Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
> wrote:
>> Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would
>> give
>> a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development.
>> Later on I was wor
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:15:33 +0200, Svante Signell
wrote:
>It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC
>overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using
>dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other
>software, like rpm-based used by
20 matches
Mail list logo
