Salut.
Voici une annonce qui pourrait en intéresser certains, vu qu'on cible un
impact sur des outils utilisés par Debian (comme bts-link).
(Version avec liens sur :
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:16:44PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Except that debtags are right now for binary packages, whereas
copyright is for source packages.
Err, not quite right:
Policy 4.5:
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and
distribution
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
I was wondering myself too, since I'm always doing uploads with
*minimal* impact on NEW (means, uploading new stuff first, and then
upload a dedicated version
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
xipmsg is there for IP Messenger.
Is IP Messenger a special protocol? I dont really see IP(as in Internet
Protocol?) beeing a very aproperiate label.
yes, it is a
[Jonathan Steel]
I cannot find anywhere in the documentation how to solve my current
problem. I have made bunch of custom packages that will install, among
other things, a bunch of libraries into /opt/pkgs/packagname. I know
that ldconfig gets run after apt-get.
I suspect the proper solution
Hi,
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 23:09, Frans Pop wrote:
As there is no security support for backports I do not feel comfortable
adding this
I'm sure people with said hardware would appreciate a working system with no
security support over having a unusable machine :)
And, as Martin said,
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it seems
that in the normal case more packages enter NEW than are processed, so
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, LI Daobing (李道兵) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, it is a special protocol and listen on port 2425 by default.
xipmsg also this word in his description[1]
[1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/xipmsg
currently there are many clients support this protocol
Do all
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
depends on the point of view i guess. interestingly, the following
change required exactely 9.5 days, although ftp-master was asked to
fasttrack for lenny-migration:
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, LI Daobing (李道兵) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, it is a special protocol and listen on port 2425 by default.
xipmsg also this word in his description[1]
[1]
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 10:05, Daniel Baumann wrote:
The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
depends on the point of view i guess.
only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please throw
the first stone.
also, as far as I know, the ftp-team is still
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I cannot find anywhere in the documentation how to solve my current
problem. I have made bunch of custom packages that will install, among
other things, a bunch of libraries into /opt/pkgs/packagname. I know
that ldconfig gets run after
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 09:55:24 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Steve M. Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There's a load
of packages that are 3 weeks or more old.
The NEW queue is constantly being processed. Unfortunately it
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to
an upload.
[…]
In these cases, it would be nice to add an annotation to give hints
about the complexity of the task to the ftp-masters..
You want debian/changelog?
Mraw,
Le mardi 02 décembre 2008 à 19:08 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a
écrit :
Since 2.24 (which is in experimental) the evince package doesn't link to
unneeded dependencies anymore, making the evince-gtk package pointless. So now
you will be able to install the evince package with the same results.
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The solution to your problem already exists (actually, it has been
*designed* for that): http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
, it just needs someone with the energy of finalizing the proposal
(most likely via a DEP), so that is stops
Hey,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:25:20PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The solution to your problem already exists (actually, it has been
*designed* for that): http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
, it just needs someone with the
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:49:25AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
To get this started we need a mailing list and a repository, then we
can place a notice on the wiki directing people to the mailing list
and make the wiki page immutable so that there is no confusion.
Come on, do you really need all
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:05:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:49:25AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
To get this started we need a mailing list and a repository, then we
can place a notice on the wiki directing people to the mailing list
and make the wiki page
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:07:51 Cyril Brulebois, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to
an upload.
[…]
In these cases, it would be nice to add an annotation to give hints
about the
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:46:29PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:30:54PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
We should somehow tag those conflictive licenses with debtags, so that
users can filter out the ones they don't wont easily. I don't object
[...]
Except that
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:18:35PM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
The wish for encoding licenses in debtags categories periodically shows
up, so I collected some pointers to old discussions in the FAQ:
Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:25:20PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The solution to your problem already exists (actually, it has been
*designed* for that):
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:26:03PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
How should we go about collecting to the contributers? Should I post
a note to the wiki (alerting the subscribers) about this, and if so,
where to direct people for collaboration?
It is up to you. From a management point of view, I
On 03/12/08 at 11:24 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 10:05, Daniel Baumann wrote:
The NEW queue is constantly being processed.
depends on the point of view i guess.
only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please throw
the first
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:57:33PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As one of the primary contributers to the copyright proposal I would
obviously like to be involved in its ratification. I am guessing some of the
other main contributers would like to be involved too.
Great, then maybe
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
overall quality), we could simply decide to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: loggedfs
Version: 0.5
Upstream Author: Rémi Flament rflament at laposte.net
URL: http://loggedfs.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL
Description: LoggedFS is a fuse-filesystem
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:34:06 Lucas Nussbaum, vous avez écrit :
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving Debian's
overall quality),
[Loïc Minier]
Or perhaps a new /etc/ld.so.conf.d/packagname.conf?
I would recommend against it, if these extra libraries should only be
used by some binaries, not all binaries. Adding to ld.so.conf will
change the global configuration, while modifying rpath will only
affect the intended
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:50:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:26:03PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
How should we go about collecting to the contributers? Should I post
a note to the wiki (alerting the subscribers) about this, and if so,
where to direct people
On 03/12/08 at 13:56 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and annoying
contributors) than good (by detecting mistakes and improving
2008/12/3 Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much time.
If people feel that a reviewing service is
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much time.
These things are the major slowdowns, at least for
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:29, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much time.
I'm very happy about the
On 03/12/08 at 15:41 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain why it takes so much
On 03/12/08 at 14:45 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:29, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:41:29PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that we should drop the legal review (that would probably
be dangerous). However, NEW reviews seem to cover a lot of other
aspects currently, which might explain why it
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 03/12/08 at 15:41 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
if you've also made sure that you don't get any lintian warnings and
your debian-directory is clear (especially debian/rules), the whole
process is pretty painless.
Why is that relevant?
Lintian errors
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm guessing that many of the other checks that Lucas mentions fall out
of the examination you have to do for the licensing anyway?
Yes, eg. code duplication shows up pretty fast in the
license/copyright check.
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of our users would probably agree to trade a small amount of
quality with faster packaging of new versions, and more timely releases.
No. The people you describe want Ubuntu, or something alike. They're
free to go get it, as far as I'm concerned.
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:29:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
If people feel that a reviewing service is needed, we could split
that out of NEW processing and have a separate service (or just use
debian-mentors@ and http://mentors.debian.net).
Hi all,
I completely agree with Lucas that
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:45:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
I'm very happy about the additional checks the ftpteam does. If people want a
faster crappy distribution, there are options, no need to turn Debian into
that.
I don't understand the logical connection here. IMO, NEW processing
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand the logical connection here. IMO, NEW processing should
be a rubber stamp, with only the checking required to satisfy whatever our
needs are for liability purposes.
In my relatively short experience even the legalese check is
definitely
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:36:39 Miriam Ruiz, vous avez écrit :
If people feel that a reviewing service is needed, we could split
that out of NEW processing and have a separate service (or just use
debian-mentors@ and http://mentors.debian.net).
Yup, I agree with you. I think that
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
also, as far as I know, the ftp-team is still looking for new members, it's
just that not many people want to do the work. (last time they called, only 4
people replied, out of which 2 became ftp-assistents. pretty good,
2008/12/3 Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:45:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
I'm very happy about the additional checks the ftpteam does. If people want a
faster crappy distribution, there are options, no need to turn Debian into
that.
I don't understand the
* Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03 15:51]:
I, too, believe the copyright check is the core of the role of the NEW queue.
Quality checks could be done later and this would ease the whole process
while
keeping a focus where it is important.
I completely disagree. It's a welcome
Martin Wuertele wrote:
If you want to test packages not yet ready for debian you can upload
them to universe.
What's universe ?
You mean experimental ?
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدقي
http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy
Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:33:15PM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
I completely disagree. It's a welcome benefit if packages of inferior
quality are prevented from entering the archive in the first place imo.
I agree with this and we should not get rid of it.
If you want to test packages not
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It surprises me that the only solution to that problem seems to be to
add more people to the FTP team, so that the processing bandwidth will
improve.
...
It's funny how in Debian, we always prefer to add more checks (which
always let some things get thought while
On 03/12/08 at 17:43 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It surprises me that the only solution to that problem seems to be to
add more people to the FTP team, so that the processing bandwidth will
improve.
...
It's funny how in Debian, we always prefer to add more
On 03/12/08 at 16:33 +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03 15:51]:
I, too, believe the copyright check is the core of the role of the NEW
queue.
Quality checks could be done later and this would ease the whole process
while
keeping a focus
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm not advocating that we just stop doing reviews. But IMHO, NEW
processing should be about the legal problems, not about the random
lintian warning/errors, and the various other packaging malpractices.
At least package
2008/12/3 Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We currently have a long reviewing process before packages get into the
archive. But once they are in, maintainers are free to do whatever they
want with their packages, without any review happening.
I'm not advocating that we just stop doing
On 03/12/08 at 17:21 +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm not advocating that we just stop doing reviews. But IMHO, NEW
processing should be about the legal problems, not about the random
lintian warning/errors, and the various other
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's funny that you bring this up in the thread originiating with this
specific example.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?
The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the
deficiency of NEW processing was
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 19:28:04 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/12/08 at 17:21 +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:18:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm not advocating that we just stop doing reviews. But IMHO, NEW
processing should be about the legal problems, not
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:52:06PM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of bugs
in
Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for autobuilders caused by
these subsequent uploads meant to bring the package(s) in a technically
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:49:25AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
As one of the primary contributers to the copyright proposal I would obviously
like to be involved in its ratification. I am guessing some of the other main
contributers would like to be involved too.
To get this started we need a
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 20:35:11 Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:52:06PM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of
bugs in Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for
autobuilders caused by these
Holger Levsen wrote:
only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please throw
the first stone.
or in other words: as soon as someone does something on a voluntary
basis, it is above critic.
is that really what you want to say?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:47:41PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand the logical connection here. IMO, NEW processing should
be a rubber stamp, with only the checking required to satisfy whatever our
needs are for liability purposes.
In
On 03/12/08 at 19:52 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of bugs
in
Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for autobuilders caused by
these subsequent uploads meant to bring the package(s) in a technically sane
shape,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:29, Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/12/08 at 13:56 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
That's not true. We imposed that reviewing step to ourselves, and, if
it's doing more harm (by slowing down development and
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 22:01:45 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/12/08 at 19:52 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of
bugs in Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for
autobuilders caused by these subsequent uploads
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 16:33:15 Martin Wuertele, vous avez écrit :
Quality checks could be done later and this would ease the whole process
while keeping a focus where it is important.
I completely disagree. It's a welcome benefit if packages of inferior
quality are prevented from
[...]
So, it is much better these to be detected and probably rejected
before doing any more harm on their way. Low quality packages won't help
users either, nor these users get the finally fixed and brought into
relatively sane shape package faster.
I'm quite sure that most of our
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:00:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
These things are the major slowdowns, at least for me, when doing NEW
keeping this in mind ...
processing:
- package contains files under different license
- package contains
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:52:39AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:49:25AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
As one of the primary contributers to the copyright proposal I would
obviously
like to be involved in its ratification. I am guessing some of the other
main
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
I don't understand the logical connection here. IMO, NEW processing
should be a rubber stamp,
It shouldn't need to be more than this, because packages shouldn't be
uploaded with problems that can be trivially identified at NEW
processing time. However,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:51:07PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
You can argue that maybe it is like this for Kalle and for the other
FTP masters doing NEW review, but that seems unlikely to me.
Lucas pointed out that this wasn't clear. What I meant is: one can
argue that the parameters
It surprises me that the only solution to that problem seems to be to
add more people to the FTP team, so that the processing bandwidth will
improve.
That is the only solution which will help.
That's not true.
Sre. And the world dies tomorrow.
We imposed that reviewing step to
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
someone that not only complains on lists but actually wants to do work.
just to make sure: is this targeted at me?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet:
Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:07:51 Cyril Brulebois, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] (03/12/2008):
I've always wondered why it is not possible to add meta information to
an upload.
[…]
In these cases, it would be nice to add an annotation to give
On 03/12/08 at 22:15 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And the checks for that take about 98% of the time in NEW.
OK. But then, I'm not sure of the rationale behind this paragraph of
[1]:
- need a very good understanding of the archive, how packaging works,
know qa processes and the general way
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
someone that not only complains on lists but actually wants to do work.
just to make sure: is this targeted at me?
No.
--
bye, Joerg
My first contact with Linux was with SuSE 6.3. A friend of mine
installed it on my pc, and just take me a couple of hours to reinstall
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Frederic CORNU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: qrest
Version : 0.4
Upstream Author : Frederic CORNU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.qrest.org/
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: C++
Description : set of
I have recently adopted the libpam-ssh package and made a lot changes in
the way the PAM module works. In summary, the module did not work as
advertised, so I rewrote parts of it while trying to make as little
disruption as possible, but one cannot make an omelet...
Because of the security
[Michael Tautschnig]
Instead, currently, they get distracted by many easy-to-spot errors
(including lintian warnings/errors, which really doesn't require one
to be an ftp-master to see...).
This issue could be solved by automatically rejecting all packages
with a lintian error when it show up
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 21:01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Buildds are machines, that only eat power.
Wrong.
Some archs have already problems keeping up, adding more load to them hurts
testing-migration (archs have to be in sync), thus this would hurt users.
regards,
Holger
On 2008-12-03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Michael Tautschnig]
Instead, currently, they get distracted by many easy-to-spot errors
(including lintian warnings/errors, which really doesn't require one
to be an ftp-master to see...).
This issue could be solved by
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 21:51, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hence, the above comments from Kalle hints the obvious solution to the
disparity: make dak run lintian and reject uploads introducing E:
^ +new
output.
+1
/me
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 20:01, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Holger Levsen wrote:
only those who dont have any backlogs in their voluntary duties, please
throw the first stone.
or in other words: as soon as someone does something on a voluntary
basis, it is above critic.
is
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:34:10PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 21:01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Buildds are machines, that only eat power.
Wrong.
Some archs have already problems keeping up
[citation needed]
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Michael Tautschnig]
Instead, currently, they get distracted by many easy-to-spot errors
(including lintian warnings/errors, which really doesn't require one
to be an ftp-master to see...).
This issue could be solved by automatically rejecting
Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And from my maintainer point of view, lintian becomes more and more
irrelevant, as it warns about more and more stupidities, so the real
issues is being hidden in the amount of crap outputted.
If you think Lintian is warning about something that it
On 03/12/08 at 23:34 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 21:01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Buildds are machines, that only eat power.
Wrong.
Some archs have already problems keeping up, adding more load to them hurts
testing-migration (archs have to be in
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Lintian errors are almost always an immediate REJECT, so they don't
really slow down the process. Warnings slow the process down as then
I'm required to make a judgement call as to allow the package in or
not, so I'm much happier if the packager deals with them beforehand.
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
In essence, this whole trip through NEW would not have happened if the
maintainer would actually routinely install his packages before
uploading. I am all in favor of fast-tracking urgent stuff, but the
deal should involve the maintainer making extra-sure to get things
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Note that we currently are working on integrating lintian into dak in
a way that lets us autoreject on selected lintian tags. That will help
NEW a little too, even if NEW is the smallest driving force for this
change. But in the same change we *can* go and reject all NEW
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:29:30AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
This imput seems to me the most useful contribution to this thread, Zach
snip
could be very much automatic, just as Zach pointed out. An automatic
/me loves the Spanish pronunciation of my (nick)name :-)
Besos.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o-
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:41:29PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Then, if you've also made sure that you don't get any lintian warnings
and your debian-directory is clear (especially debian/rules), the whole
process is pretty painless.
I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for
2008/12/3 Jens Peter Secher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because of the security implications of changing a PAM module, I would
welcome some peer reviewing of the changes I have made. The new package
has been uploaded to experimental, and the NEWS.Debian is as follows.
Also, I would like comments in
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:41:50PM -0800, Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
Instead, currently, they get distracted by many easy-to-spot errors
(including lintian warnings/errors, which really doesn't require one to be an
ftp-master to see...).
Hi everybody
After reading the thread this morning,
Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:52:17PM +, Noah Slater a écrit :
We have struggled enough with the proposal as it is. My fear is that
discussing
it on debian-devel will open it up to fire-and-forget criticism that lacks
context of previous discussions, is poorly thought out, results in
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:33:15PM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
I, too, believe the copyright check is the core of the role of the NEW
queue.
Quality checks could be done later and this would ease the whole process
while
keeping a focus where it is important.
I completely
Russ Allbery wrote:
If you think Lintian is warning about something that it shouldn't warn
about, please report a bug. In some cases, it may be that we think that
you are not maintaining your package the way that we think you should
based on our understanding of the general Debian consensus,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:29:30AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
This imput seems to me the most useful contribution to this thread, Zach
snip
could be very much automatic, just as Zach pointed out. An automatic
/me loves the Spanish pronunciation of my (nick)name :-)
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the task the
project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning this at all as a
factor in making the NEW queue painless indicates there's a problem with
the process as implemented.
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
