* John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0200, Fernanda Giroleti Weiden wrote:
> > "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me
> > from becoming involved in Debian for some time."
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2004/12/msg00011.html
>
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> a) legal to distribute
Where, and to who? You can't distribute something without being
somewhere and distributing it to someone.
> b) meets the dfsg
> c) scratches an itch you feel, and something you are willing to sign
> up to maintain and
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:41:34 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Where do we specify these requirements for a package to be in
> > Debian?
>
> Umm, does everything need to come on a piece of paper
>
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:02:24 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > (However, the material in question on this thread may or may not be
> > illegal).
>
> Quite. And if material objectionable to children is under
> discussion, there is
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:43:19 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Stern, from my understanding, was broadcasting such language on the
> > public airwaves. Do you have an example of a company being
> > pros
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The only other real condition is:
>
> 2) is acceptable to one of the ftp-masters.
>
> So ask one of them directly.
Agreed, and I think they've done a good job of it thusfar. That answer
seems, to me anyway, to be an insufficient answer
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Henrique answered your question. There has been some divergence between
> various distributions regarding the naming and especially the versioning
> of these libraries. We would heal that fork to increase compatibility.
> Doing that means that some nam
* Philipp Hug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Is it really necessary to have a full blown MTA in the base installation?
> Wouldn't it make more sense to just install a simple store-and-forward proxy
> (e.g nullmailer)?
> Or are there other alternatives that just provide a sendmail wrapper?
Well, wou
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> (And, BTW, newraff is a quite mature box. Of course, there is always
> more and better hardware available, but newraff is already a very good
> machine. And, we want to give the testing migration script more tasks,
> like handling of the udebs, which put
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I hope you can agree that we need to say that "almost all" packages that
> > should be build are build. And I consider 97.5% to be a reasonable
> > level. Also, if we exclude too much, we might start to ask the question
> > why we should do a
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
> I'll get them to the right ppl.
I'd be willing to help with the shipping bill, and possibly with the
h
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> > > sparc developers. I can't pay to ship th
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > > > Also,
* Marc Singer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > So, what do you think? Could this work?
>
> I like the idea a lot. What I'd like to see is a way to do a
> cross-platform build for the small system targets. I do a lot of ARM
> work: lo
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> > The point is still that some architectures are going to be left out in
> > the dark. That's the purpose of the whole plan.
>
> Only if those architectures don't have sufficient community support. I
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
> > I don't believe this is accurate, and is in fact a big problem that I
> > have with this proposal. Things like "N may not be more than 2" and
> > "architectur
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I agree. It's become quite evident that Debian is barely able to make
> releases at all with the status quo. And, given a choice between having
> no stable releases at all and having stable releases of a significantly
> reduced number of arches, I'd gla
* Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Example minimal quality standards:
> - it should have a large part of the packages built
> - there should be enough buildds to keep up with security and new uploads
> within reasonable time.
> - there should be some minimal team to support this archi
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be
> maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for
> system-wide problems, and which means access to them can be controlled,
> rather than opening up user
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> > and upload packages to help the build with its backlo
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > When you say "N+1" buildds for a release architecture, do you mean
> > _exactly_ N+1, or _at least_ N+1?
>
> At least; although, there are some concerns about plugging too many machine
* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Another factor might be security support:
>
> At least one buildd (plus hot-standby) must be available [under strict
> DSA/Security administration] which is fast enough to build security updates
> without infringing on vendor-sec embargoes.
I'm not 1
* Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > this?
> >
>
> Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
> upload? This is definite
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > So accept it and auto-discard it instead, if you prefer; but don't throw it
> > back at master after telling master to send it to you.
>
> I'm strange in that I like my mail to be r
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > Then bounce it locally. Duh. No reason to force master to deal with
> > the bounce messages you feel are 'right' to send.
>
> I don
* Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You would prefer that Ian:
>
> a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
>malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
That is what he's said he wants to do. What I want him to do is have
*his* servers do it, n
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Since we are talking about it, it is not always trivial to special-case an
> incoming connection for a local bounce instead of a SMTP-level bounce,
> though. At least not with all MTAs.
Using an MTA with the capabilities you need should b
* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I expect you could do it though I havn't tried myself because I'm not a
> > big fan of smtp-level rejects exactly for these reasons. I just accept
>
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > * Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> > >malware and spam
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send
> me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the
> form of bandwidth, processing time, and disk space) are limited, and if
Then don't run a mail server.
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Are you saying you should bounce SPAM mail???
*I* don't bounce much of anything. Talk to Ian about wanting to
generate bounces, it wasn't my idea. What I want is for him to bounce
it himself if he feels it needs to be bounced, not make master do it.
No, I
* Jos? Luis Tall?n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Having sent you e-mails with my last answers to the Tasks&Skills
> stage of the NM process on 2005/10/05, and having received receipt
> confirmation from you on 2005/10/18, i still have no answer from you.
> Moreover, i have ping'd you on 2005
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Does anyone want to adopt/help with the ploticus packages in Debian?
I'm only slightly better than MIA (and some might dispute even that),
but I'd really like to see ploticus in Debian updated/improved. I don't
use it much myself but it's one of the pa
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
>
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> > 'no
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should
> > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other
> > derivative, it's a significant operati
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The guidelines are aimed at the wrong thing is my point.
I agree with this. I also think that this is one of the reasons why
there's been so much uproar about them.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
> are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
> speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
> understand that up to now we have had the
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > - at least two buildd administrators
> >
> > > This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> > This is at o
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid
> >situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the
> >release team because there are already too many architectures.
>
> The main issue is the port needs t
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
> >be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
>
> I like distcc -- heck I went to high school with the author -- and I
> think it's cool. I don't
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Qt in Debian must build against libiodbc2-dev because otherwise it would
> have a circular build-dependency with unixodbc.
Circular build-deps aren't necessairly a real problem. There's a fair
amount of other stuff which have them and in general I think
* Tim Goodaire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I haven't been able to find an ITP for this. I've found an RFP for it
> though (278810). Is this what you're referring to?
Yes.
> Also, my ITP bug (305287) has already been closed on me. Apparently I
Yes, I closed it since it was a duplicate WNPP bug.
* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Torsten Landschoff schrieb:
>
> > Suggestions how to fix that for real before getting sarge out of the
> > door with this risk that I don't feel I can estimate?
>
> Build a dumy libldap.so.2 with the same SONAME that consists of a NEEDED
> entry for li
* Nigel Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Unless there is a related RC bug there, I don't think it's gonna
> matter when the change is to get it in sarge (i personally have not
> seen any RC bugs though...)
There's RC bugs all over this.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At first sight this looked (for me) like making sense and having no
> negative implications. Of course reality was different - ldconfig had
> problems setting the right symbolic links.
setting the right symbolic links? It's not being used to set
* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost schrieb:
> > Completely breaks dlopen()'ings of libldap2. Don't know if there are
> > any in sarge but don't see any reason to break them if there are.
>
> dlopen() should handle dependency libs ju
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8
> architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the
Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an option? Last I checked that
answer was 'no'. Hell, that's most of the
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8
> > > architectures, so that the r
* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> any progress on making libselinux1 a "Required" package?
>
> the possibility of having debian/selinux is totally dependent
> on this one thing happening.
>
> no libselinux1="Required", no debian/selinux [all dependent packages
> e.g. cor
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8
> > > architectures, so that the r
* Blars Blarson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've been watching the sparc buildd queues for the past 9 months or
> so, filing most of the ftbfs bugs for sparc, and prodding the buildd
> maintainer when a package needs a simple build requeue or the sbuild
> chroot is broken.
Great! What mechanisms
* Robert Lemmen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the
> > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter
> > machine.
>
> how powerfull would a
* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> last time i spoke to him [name forgotten] the maintainer
> of coreutils would not accept the coreutils patches -
> already completed and demonstrated as working and sitting on
> http://selinux.lemuria.org/newselinux - because libselinu
* Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, June 8, 2005 12:50, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > In RedHat, using selinux is a run time option. If one don't want to use
> it,
> > all one need to do is update a config file and reboot. I'm sure can get
> > something similar working in Debi
* Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, June 22, 2005 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I think the point is that we ask for a donation before we spend money
> > on it.
>
> Sure, but the statement quoted above rules it out entirely. "can't pay" is
> pretty definitive. I'm wonder
* Alexis Papadopoulos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >It's a single headache for the one library developer/packager, as
> >opposed to headaches for _every user_ of the library.
> >
> Yes indeed, but it's still a headache for one person ;).
If that one person isn't willing to deal with it then that
* Alexis Papadopoulos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>The thing is that the library is written in C++ and makes heavily use of
> >>templates which means that even a small change in the code, that doesn't
> >>change the ABI, might lead to incompatibility.
> >
> >There's no 'might' about it... Eith
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > That's almost certainly a terrible idea.
>
> I somehow expected that might come up. I didn't fell to comfortable with this
> idea, but I think there must be another solution than simply doing it "by
> hand",
> a more "elegant" way.
You can't rea
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Well I did say that : "The .h file has to include the .cc one in order for the
> compilation to work."
> Now if you decide to leave the code that I put into g.cc only the .h file, it
> works too...
The template class has to actually be included, and
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Aug 11, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why, for the love of Cthulhu, does netbase depend on inetd in the first
> > place? Let's see:
> Historical reasons.
Not good enough. Not even close.
> > It would be good to get rid of inetd from
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Since #350282 is still being discussed, I ended up doing
>
> cat /etc/ssl/certs/cacert-class3.pem >> /etc/ssl/certs/cacert.pem
>
> on systems that needed access to all of CACert's certificates.
cat /my/favorite/editor >> /etc/alternatives/vi
cat /
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> also sprach Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.10.31.1948 +0100]:
> > cat /my/favorite/editor >> /etc/alternatives/vi
>
> alternatives are surely an exception, don't you think?
>
> > cat /the/best/dic
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> also sprach Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.10.31.2016 +0100]:
> > In all of these cases the files pointed to are not intended to be
> > modified but what file is used can be configured.
>
> How are certifica
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> also sprach Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.10.31.2103 +0100]:
> > > How are certificate files not intended to be modified? If they
> > > expire? If they are incomplete?
> >
> > If they expire the
* Shaun Jackman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 64-bit: alpha amd64 ia64
mips/mipsel, sparc, s390 and powerpc can all come in a 64-bit
flavors, iirc.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:41:13PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > 64-bit: alpha amd64 ia64
> > The rest are 32-bit.
>
> > Am I missing any?
>
> Nope.
*smirk
> > Perhaps this is a suitable feature for dpkg-architecture.
>
> You could just as well d
* Roberto Lumbreras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't agree, all those things are not in my opinion enough for the
> hijacking.
Thankfully, you're wrong.
> The package has bugs, lots of them, and for that reason has been removed
> from testing, well done, unstable it is here for that.
It's *n
* Roberto Lumbreras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Speaking about your mail, I think it's your opinion, mine is different.
Sure, but you're looking through some very rosy glasses.
> Jose Luis doesn't want just his name in some place, he has worked a lot
> in bacula in the past, and I don't know why
* Jos? Luis Tall?n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Actually, we've heard in this thread that Stephen (his AM) *did* offer to
> > sponsor bacula uploads, and José Luis did not avail himself of this.
> When the offer did come, I wasn't able to prepare the upload anyway.
> I sus
* Jos? Luis Tall?n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> If the maintainer still wants to maintain it, help him, do NMUs, whatever,
> >> but I'm still looking for one reason you can take over the package against
> >> the maintainer's opini
* Riku Voipio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:05:17PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 01:09:11PM +0200, Roberto Lumbreras wrote:
> > > The package has bugs, lots of them, and for that reason has been removed
> > > from testing, well done, unstable it is
* Turbo Fredriksson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> But regarding the build system, I REALLY object to any major changes! Fixes
> yes,
> but not REPLACEMENT!!
Uhh, or, not... Sorry, but the build system was terrible and is
certainly something which should not be encouraged.
I'd encourage you to lo
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The FHS is actually not very clear, as it says 64-bit libraries should
> be in (/usr)/lib64, whereas system libraries should be in (/usr)/lib.
> This is a contradiction for a pure 64-bit system.
The FHS is very clear about the path to the 64bit linke
* Turbo Fredriksson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > * Turbo Fredriksson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> But regarding the build system, I REALLY object to any major changes!
> >> Fixes yes,
> >> but not REPLACE
* Turbo Fredriksson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You keep saying that, without showing the problems. From what I can see,
> all you say is "it's wrong", "it's very wrong" and "there's major problems
> with it".
John pointed out the issues to it earlier in this thread, which you said
you had follo
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > If you really have urgent reasons to get a package into new, the best
> > action is probably to send a mail to debian-release and to present these
> > reasons.
>
> Please don't abuse the
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:01:34AM +0200, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [...] They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random
> > > opinions on this decision *don't*
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
> > (2) Upstream status.
> > There hasn't been a new upstream for sysklogd since 2001.
> > All of the others are active upstream.
>
> Have you checked if SuSE's syslog-ng is heavily patched? If it's
> mostly alright, it's probably
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and
> > > myself examined the license before a
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the
> guise of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one act of bad
> faith often leads to others.
pffft. This is taking it to an extreme. He wasn't trying to fake who
he wa
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised:
> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the guise
> >> of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost spake thusly:
> > I wasn't making any claim as to the general validity of IDs which
> > are purchased and I'm rather annoyed that you attempted to
> > extrapolate it out to such. What I s
* John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:39:16PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > Not always true. Both paths can be active at the same time.. if supported by
> > the SAN array. Then you do also load balancing between the paths..
>
> Quite true, though my impression
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In summary: Yes, one could probably work around the lack of versions
> in the -dev packages name, but the result would be (in my view)
> significantly less elegant than having it there.
Trying to support unsupported versions of libraries is decidely w
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit Stephen Frost
> > If the API changes in an incompatible way then *fix* the things which
> > use the library to use the new API. Users aren't affected- the old,
> > already compiled package, works fine against
* Jos? Luis Tall?n ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I would like to know if Stephen Frost is alright and if he is still
> active in any way. He is my Application Manager and i have known nothing
> from him since 19th July. He has not even answered my pings on 21st
> October, 8&1
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> For instance, the prestigious emacs21 needs only one line, as
> everybody who is anybody is supposed to know what it is all about.
Yup. Don't see any problem with that either. Have a day.
Stephen
pgpQddrICotFS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Too bad. The two are not, should not, and should never be related.
Stephen
pgpiYTdDuqfg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
The description is adequate. The size of the package has nothing to do
with it.
> The Packages file could very well be the source
* Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> to optional, but that would probably break something.) Thus, I am
> soliciting input about whether this is something people would like to
> see. The advantage is better support for acl's in debian (which will be
I'd definitely like to see it. I think t
* Thomas Hood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In a discussion that followed from this thread off-list, some
> people agreed that the administrator should be asked what
> he or she wants to do with an obsolete conffile. The conffile
> should not be deleted silently because other packages may be
> usin
* Thomas Hood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:46, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I see this as totally bogus. Either the conffile is shared or it isn't.
> > If it's shared then the packages involved know this
>
> Package foo which eliminates /etc
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> - dump the old software tables and store the dump somewhere, giving
> pointers to the dump in all sorts of useful places. But if I put it
> somewhere temporary (/tmp), it might disappear before the admin
> realises, and somewher
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all setuid/gid
> > bit grants to go through this or another list for peer review, much as
> > pre-depends are supposed to.
>
> I a
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2003-08-01 13:40:51.0 -0400
> +++ policy.sgml 2003-08-01 13:45:24.0 -0400
> @@ -7104,6 +7104,14 @@
> execute them.
>
>
> +
> + Since setuid and setgid programs are often a security
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> How about moving from the one-step application (one is non-dd or dd) two a
> two
> stage process: introduce the 'Debian Contributor' brand with very easy entry
> level, and only DC's (older than a month or something like that -
* Martin Quinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> $ LC_ALL=C gpg --keyserver keyring.debian.org --recv-keys E145F334
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
>
> This is the ID of my key, available from www.keyserver.net and signed by 2
> DD. Did I mess something up ?
key
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
