On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:33:09 +0200 Julien Cristau
wrote:
> tags 966373 + wontfix
> close 966373
Another closure, this time without excuse. It is obviously a mistake,
because Debian derivatives are welcome, right? I will correct this.
Adam D. Barratt did not answer my previous questions, thus
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 09:00:48 +0100 "Adam D. Barratt" wrote:
> This has nothing specifically to do with updates to stable, and
> changing the versioning used for source updates to stable will not
> change it. If stable released with version 1.0-1 of package foo, then
> it is entirely feasible that
On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 20:05 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dl 21 de 09 de 2020 a les 16:50 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va
> escriure:
> > I will elaborate on the problem with 1-1+b1foo1 and 1-1+b1foo1+b1
> > if you are willing to help.
>
> First, a binNMU in Debian may be unnecessary in
El dl 21 de 09 de 2020 a les 16:50 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va
escriure:
> I will elaborate on the problem with 1-1+b1foo1 and 1-1+b1foo1+b1 if
> you are willing to help.
First, a binNMU in Debian may be unnecessary in the derivative.
Following Debian binNMUs means unnecessary builds in
Control: reopen -1
El dl 21 de 09 de 2020 a les 16:50 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va
escriure:
> Would you show your good intention by letting this discussion
> happen in an opened report?
Let us test your good intention.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
El dl 21 de 09 de 2020 a les 15:29 +0100, Adam D. Barratt va escriure:
> You said disruptive.
You are not addressing the reason I have given. I will elaborate on the
problem with 1-1+b1foo1 and 1-1+b1foo1+b1 if you are willing to help.
Closing bugs immediately and repeatedly seem the opposite to
On Mon, 2020-09-21 at 16:20 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:53:33 +0100 "Adam D. Barratt" barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> > ("These version numbers are ugly"
>
> Who did say that?
You said disruptive. A version number isn't disruptive, the implication
is that you consider
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:53:33 +0100 "Adam D. Barratt" wrote:
> ("These version numbers are ugly"
Who did say that? Please reopen the bug and answer to the reason I have
given, unless you admit that Debian derivatives are not welcome.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Control: reopen -1
El dg 06 de 09 de 2020 a les 22:50 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va
escriure:
> Otherwise, I will reopen this report.
Reopening then.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
El dg 06 de 09 de 2020 a les 11:59 +0200, Ansgar va escriure:
> I didn't say that,
Yes, Ansgar literally did:[1] If I were anyone else, "I would recommend
to discuss on debian-devel@." Filing a bug against general was the
right way; submitter's identity is irrelevant.
> This
> includes filing
Hi Javier,
On Sun, 2020-09-06 at 09:20 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:53:59 +0200 Chris Hofstaedtler <
> z...@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > Filing this against the `general` package does nothing
> > useful for this discussion,
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:28:25 +0200 Ansgar
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:53:59 +0200 Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
> Filing this against the `general` package does nothing
> useful for this discussion,
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:28:25 +0200 Ansgar wrote:
> I would recommend to
> discuss on debian-devel@.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic
Package: general
Severity: wishlist
For those who care about Debian derivatives:
A derivative may be deployed as an overlay rather than a full archive.
Modifications from the derivative live together with originals from
Debian, but modifications must have a higher version.
Full archives use
13 matches
Mail list logo
