On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:27:36 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:33:49 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
serious is a severe violation of Debi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:33:49 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it
>>> violates a "must" or "required" directive), or, in the pa
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:33:49 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:45 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Experimental, in its current form, is basically a ghetto of sorts:
> > not only is it not auto-built, but people by and large don't use it
> > unless they have some special interest in a package which they already
> > _know_ is in experimental, and ther
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:33:49PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to
>> unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a
>> stable Debian release.
>
> Hmmm, I'm not sure wh
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree with you. This is why I expect experimental to be autobuilt
>> in order to easy the integration of such packages.
>
> And I think we should not create wrong, arbitary expectations
> of current practice (like, do not upload code not kno
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:33:49PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to
> unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a
> stable Debian release.
Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on your arguments, but I think your
c
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:45 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> JÃrÃme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
> BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS
> sna
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:43:05 +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:37:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to debian-emacsen:
>> >This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in
>> > unstable that sh
On 01 Mar 2004 12:37:28 +0200, debian said:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:37:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to debian-emacsen:
>> This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in unstable
>> that should not yet go into testing.
> But the practice of uploading to uns
On 27 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I guess what you want are backports of recent XEmacs packages.
>
I am not sure I understand and I also think this is important:
Xemacs official package system sometimes has been out of syn with
the orginal p
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:37:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> posted to debian-emacsen:
> >This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in
> > unstable that should not yet go into testing.
>
> But the practice of uploading to unstable some
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:37:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted to debian-emacsen:
> This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in
> unstable that should not yet go into testing.
But the practice of uploading to unstable something which cannot
reasonably be expec
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:45 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> > BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS
>>> > snapshots. What distribution do you think it would fit t
Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing.
> >>
> >> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only
> >> temporarily (again IMO).
> >
> > Hu
Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing.
>
> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only
> temporarily (again IMO).
What kludge are you talking about? If a program is that buggy,
there are many chances to see RC bugs are filed
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing.
>>
>> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only
>> temporarily (again IMO).
>
> Huh? It's pretty fundamental to the way the entire system work
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing.
>
> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only
> temporarily (again IMO).
Huh? It's pretty fundamental to the way the entire system works...
You _can't_ determine whether something is r
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS snapshots.
>> > What distribution do you think it would fit the best?:
>> > - unstable
>> > - experimental
>> > - none of the above, a stagging
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:45:57 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Keep in mind that anything uploaded to unstable really should be fit
> for a stable Debian release (IMO anyway).
Why is that, given that one can file a serious bug against
one's package to keep it out of testin
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:53:58 +, Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to
debian-emacsen:
> - The 21.5 series in another thing, this is still
> buggy (official beta) so why not putting it into the
> testing branch of debian.
Because that will put it in Debia
Quoting Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - The 21.5 series in another thing, this is still
> buggy (official beta) so why not putting it into the
> testing branch of debian.
I guess you don't mean 'testing' but 'experimental'. 'testing'
is the release candidate
Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS snapshots.
> > What distribution do you think it would fit the best?:
> > - unstable
> > - experimental
> > - none of the above, a stagging area would be better
>
> Keep in mind that anythin
On 27 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:06:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Nathanael Nerode) said:
>
> Nathanael> The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy
> Nathanael> (or something) to maintain the xemacs packages properly
> Nathanael> at the moment.
On 26 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>> Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also propose to sync with
>> offical xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and
>> testing 21.5.x.
>
> I don't use xemacs, but that doesn't
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keep in mind that anything uploaded to unstable really should be fit for
> a stable Debian release (IMO anyway).
This is generally true of CVS emacs anyway -- it's very rare for there
to be significant problems, and potentially destabilizing changes are
g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>>> Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also propose to sync with offical
>>> xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and testing 21.5
James LewisMoss wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:06:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) said:
Nathanael> The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy
Nathanael> (or something) to maintain the xemacs packages properly at
Nathanael> the moment.
Nathanael> Co-maintainers and/o
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:06:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode)
> said:
Nathanael> The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy
Nathanael> (or something) to maintain the xemacs packages properly at
Nathanael> the moment.
Nathanael> Co-maintainers and/or NMUs ar
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:26:32PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>> BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS snapshots.
>> What distribution do you think it would fit the best?:
>> - unstable
>> - experimental
>> - none of the above, a st
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:26:32PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS snapshots.
> What distribution do you think it would fit the best?:
> - unstable
> - experimental
> - none of the above, a stagging area would be better
I suppose different
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>> Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also propose to sync with offical
>> xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and testing 21.5.x.
>
> I don't use xemacs, but that doesn't make
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:36:26PM +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
> Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also propose to sync with offical
> xemacs release politics, ie stable should be 21.4.x and testing 21.5.x.
I don't use xemacs, but that doesn't make much sense -- you can't choose
different versio
On 26 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy (or
> something) to maintain the xemacs packages properly at the moment.
>
> Co-maintainers and/or NMUs are definitely needed.
>
> Volunteers? ;-)
Very true, I mentioned some oddies and also prop
The maintainer, James Lewis-Moss, appears to be too busy (or something)
to maintain the xemacs packages properly at the moment.
Co-maintainers and/or NMUs are definitely needed.
Volunteers? ;-)
--
Nathanael Nerode
US citizens: if you're considering voting for Bush, look at these first:
http:
35 matches
Mail list logo
