Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-virtualkeyboard
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-wayland
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/developer
I tried to remove a package from NEW with `dcut rm package.deb`, `dcut
rm package.changes` and `dcut cancel package.changes`, but nothing
worked.
Is there even a way to remove a package from NEW?
Regards,
Stephan
Am 18. November 2021 10:30:37 MEZ schrieb Stephan Lachnit
:
>I tried to remove a package from NEW with `dcut rm package.deb`, `dcut
>rm package.changes` and `dcut cancel package.changes`, but nothing
>worked.
>Is there even a way to remove a package from NEW?
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
ask FTP Master
Quoting Tobias Frost (2021-11-18 10:38:40)
> (speculatinng on the why you want it rejected: if you want to replace it with
> e.g. a newer version, you can just upload the new version)
slightly related question: if I upload a new version to NEW, will the Age of
the package be reset? I'm asking bec
Michael Biebl writes:
> Am 17.11.2021 um 19:57 schrieb Sam Hartman:
>> The question is whether we ever get to a place where people can update
>> files in a package currently installed to /bin/foo and instead install
>> them to /usr/bin/foo.
>> We have a consensus that dpkg bugs make that a bad ide
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-11-18 11:26:44)
> Quoting Tobias Frost (2021-11-18 10:38:40)
> > (speculatinng on the why you want it rejected: if you want to replace it
> > with e.g. a newer version, you can just upload the new version)
>
> slightly related question: if I upload a
Hi all.
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes:
> slightly related question: if I upload a new version to NEW, will the Age of
> the package be reset? I'm asking because my package has been in NEW for four
> months already and I'd like to avoid loosing that place by an upload of a new
> upstrea
Hi list,
On 18/11/2021 11:51, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Apologies in advance if this is something that has been discussed a lot
in the past. I'd be very interested in being pointed in the right
direction in that case!
No need to apologize... searching the the devel archives on "NEW queue"
reveal
On Nov 18, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> And, as it has proven to be a genuinely critical problem, it is also their
No, it has not.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 13:09 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 18, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> > And, as it has proven to be a genuinely critical problem, it is also their
> No, it has not.
Indeed - it seems to me there's a convenient tendency to forget that
this is not something new that has neve
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Every time I see stories like this, I wonder what the consequences of
> the NEW queue's current workings are. This is *not* criticism of the
> heroic work of the FTP Masters, nor is it criticism of the objectives
> they have in processing
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> [...] Since packages in experimental will never land in any
> official release, I think droppin
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:28 PM Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages in ex
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 19:28 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages in ex
Hi,
On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
stable) or for the servers that run the Debian infrastructure, which
of course includes experimental.
The latter.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 04:08:23PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > > [...] Since packages in experimental will never land in any
> > > official release,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:16 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>
> On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>
> > I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
> > additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
> > stable) or for the servers that run the Debian infr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Terceiro
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: ruby-rantly
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : Ana María Martínez Gómez, Howard Yeh, Anthony Bargnesi,
Eric Bischoff
* URL : https://github.com/rantly-
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:28:28 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:52:56PM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> > I don't know if that has been proposed before, but how about waiving
> > the NEW queue requirement for experimental packages as a start?
> > [...] Since packages i
Stephan Lachnit writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:16 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/21 4:08 PM, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>>
>> > I guess this raises the (maybe already answered) question if the
>> > additional license QA from NEW is for the end-product (i.e. Debian
>> > stable) or for th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-webchannel
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/develo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-webengine
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/develop
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 18, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> as it has proven to be a genuinely critical problem
> No, it has not.
In the previous long thread on debian-devel on this subject, someone posted a
step-by-step recipe to reproduce a phenomenon where a file that has been moved
(in its pac
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:12:10PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>...
> For the Debian package you could drop use_debian_packaged_libpcre.patch and
> use the embedded copy to not block the prce3 removal in Debian.
As a general comment, this would be a lot worse than keeping pcre3.
If any co
Luca Bocassi wrote:
...
> [merged /usr] is the default. It has been the
> default for multiple releases of multiple distributions. All Ubuntu
> installations that were not using this default are now forcibly
> converted upon upgrade to 21.10.
>
> And yet nobody has actually seen [the file disappear
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-websockets
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/develo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: qt6-webview
Version : 6.2.1
Upstream Author : The Qt Company Ltd.
* URL : https://www.qt.io/developer
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1260 (new: 5)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 188 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 16:23 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Luca Bocassi wrote:
...
> [merged /usr] is the default. It has been the
> default for multiple releases of multiple distributions. All Ubuntu
> installations that were not using this default are now forcibly
> converted upon upgrade to 21.10.
On 2021-11-18 at 20:06, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 16:23 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Luca Bocassi wrote:
>>> [merged /usr] is the default. It has been the default for
>>> multiple releases of multiple distributions. All Ubuntu
>>> installations that were not using this def
On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 19:32 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> There is also the issue of cryptographic software, and the laws
> regarding its export from the USA, which Debian deals with by treating
> every package as though it _might_ at some point incorporate some
> crypto, and therefore registering
On Nov 18, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Are you seriously claiming that that phenomenon is not a severity:critical
> bug?
I am seriously claming that whatever you are referring to, if true, is
such a contrived example that does not actually happen in real life
(or at least, it does not happen frequen
Hi,
Am Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:12:12PM +0200 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:12:10PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> >...
> > For the Debian package you could drop use_debian_packaged_libpcre.patch and
> > use the embedded copy to not block the prce3 removal in Debian.
>
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
