I don't object to a suitable Debian developer who wants to take over
maintenance of lilypond. They should contact me directly.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:59:08 -0700
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.6-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG t...@debian.org
Changed-By: Thomas
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the
social contract lower than the choices that chose to release.
I'm not ashamed at all; I joined
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For example, having non-free in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
and potentially using
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 06:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free
bits, right?
No, not right. Please pay attention.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC
could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out
how to reverse engineer the HAL and/or the firmware to cause their
WiFi unit to become a super radio
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
The FCC understands that you can't make it *impossible*. Even before
software radios, it was understood that someone posessing the skills,
say, of an amateur radio operator might be able to add a resistor or
capacitor in parallel with
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract do
not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware manufacturers,
or stupid FCC policies.
Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 18:06 +, David Given wrote:
So having the source doesn't actually gain you anything --- you would
neither be able nor allowed to do anything with it, apart from printing
it on T-shirts.
You can learn about it. Remember the educational purpose of free
software?
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 01:48 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
No, it's not part of Debian. Non
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
So now as a Manufacturer I have the choice between
1) Use a huge NV/FLASH/EEPROM Memory which make the Hardware maybe
10-20 Euro more expensive and I will lost customers.
2) Use huge external SRAM (makes the Hardware
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:23 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
the limits put forth by
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 16:33 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
So if any of the hardware that requires non-free firmware to operate and
currently works in etch was to not work with Lenny, then that's
completely unacceptable?
If that's the case, then there is no way EVER to make Debian comply
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:13 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:38 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
The iwl4965 firmware changed 2 times incompatible since the driver
exists.
That makes me wonder just how separate the driver and firmware are. If
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
The FSF seems to disagree on this[1]:
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
the program uses only
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 08:29 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all; one could
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
releases with non-free
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
to violate a foundation
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard not support
the hardware for installation as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
So I can upload
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
redistributable firmware can belong in
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I see. So the previous statement that nobody is standing in the way
of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committed
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
I would be
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
I worded that rather badly. You should imply within acceptable terms of
the DFSG here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Right
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I guess the question is, staying in the arena of 100% Free, what if
DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
proprietary software in it? What if it
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
trying to follow the social contract?
Yes, they have.
Furthermore, the FTP team (which is
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
| General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
`
To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
thing, to give time
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Apparently, our control structures are not reliable enough to _enforce_
what we have decided. It seems we relied primarily on the release team,
which has betrayed the goals of the project, and only count on the FTP
team as a fallback,
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
could also step up to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:05:22 -0700
Source: mmorph
Binary: mmorph
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.3.4.2-12
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 07:59 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Also, is it really interesting to the average DD where this queue is?
People should be able to upload and expect their packages to end up in
the archive. It really *absolutely* does not matter if that upload goes
straight to ftp-master or
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 21:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to
(ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any
machine name directly. Queues
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 21:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to
(ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any
machine name directly. Queues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:28:32 -0700
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.6-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:16:30 -0700
Source: libofx
Binary: libofx4 libofx-dev ofx
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:0.9.0-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:04:24 -0700
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.6-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:08:17 -0700
Source: scm
Binary: scm libscm-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e5-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:07:31 -0700
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.4-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:16:52 -0500
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.4-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:25:38 -0500
Source: jacal
Binary: jacal
Architecture: source all
Version: 1b9-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:55:32 -0500
Source: mmake
Binary: mmake
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.3-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:04:42 -0500
Source: mmorph
Binary: mmorph
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.3.4.2-11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:40:51 -0500
Source: miscfiles
Binary: miscfiles
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.4.2.dfsg.1-9
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:12:08 -0500
Source: psrip
Binary: psrip
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.3-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:19:32 -0500
Source: slib
Binary: slib
Architecture: source all
Version: 3b1-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:37:29 -0500
Source: scm
Binary: scm libscm-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e5-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
It's possible for programs to completely change between versions. There
really is no difference in reality between switching from program A to
program B and switching from program A 1.1 to 1.2. The risk of problems
is exactly the same.
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Nothing in Posix permits this behavior, but it is tolerated by the
standard
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
[ strip whining ]
Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
[ whine whine whine ]
What
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
commands in incompatible ways?
Well, let's drop bash right away then !
$ bash -c 'type
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:26 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
syntax.
Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rather
than building in test
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, policy describes usage, and usage (I think) is to assume that
/bin/sh gives you a decently recent POSIX environment (I said POSIX not
GNU) and that if you rely on GNU extensions of tools (like echo -e) you
should call those
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
shell builtins. I have no objection
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
backups or nagios extensions or
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
/usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may have local
programs that assume particular non-standard behavior from these programs,
right?
I think
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
least the one mentioned on the report)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:12:17 -0500
Source: jacal
Binary: jacal
Architecture: source all
Version: 1b9-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:53:13 -0500
Source: scm
Binary: scm libscm-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e5-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:19:02 -0500
Source: slib
Binary: slib
Architecture: source all
Version: 3b1-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:35:39 -0500
Source: libofx
Binary: libofx4 libofx-dev ofx
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:0.9.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:53:04 -0500
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash gnucash-common
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.3-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:29:13 -0500
Source: slib
Binary: slib
Architecture: source all
Version: 3b1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:24:51 -0800
Source: libofx
Binary: libofx4 libofx-dev ofx
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:0.9.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 23:31 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
There are certainly performance trade-offs involved and the final
selection of features will depend on the testing of the respective
maintainers (testing should be eased by hardening-wrapper).
What bothers me
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 00:21 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
For my money, you blew it. You don't bootstrap a discussion by
presenting a pseudo-official email like the one you posted. But we can
get back to that discussion: cancel the email by saying whoops
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:56:31 -0500
Source: ifhp
Binary: ifhp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.5.20-12
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:51:24 -0500
Source: jacal
Binary: jacal
Architecture: source all
Version: 1b8-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:02:11 -0500
Source: slib
Binary: slib
Architecture: source all
Version: 3a5-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:24:27 -0800
Source: lilypond
Binary: lilypond-data lilypond-doc lilypond
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.10.33-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:37:56 -0500
Source: gnucash-docs
Binary: gnucash-docs
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2.0-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:08:07 -0500
Source: scm
Binary: libscm-dev scm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e4-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:00:48 -0500
Source: ifhp
Binary: ifhp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.5.20-11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that
depend on the libraries you
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the
maintenance.
Now
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the
main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people
willing to maintain it,
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
gnome 1.x is worth
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 19:56 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
We can surely keep all old cruft in the archive and never release again
(or not with these packages anyway), though I don't think that is
preferred from a quality assurance, security nor release point of view...
Of course, this isn't what I
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:07 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
related libs until we got rid of them al.
If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now
is the time to fix that, package a new upstream,
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 02:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
(Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
obviously subscribed to both.)
On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
believe you should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:52:21 -0500
Source: jacal
Binary: jacal
Architecture: source all
Version: 1b8-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:11:52 -0500
Source: gnucash-docs
Binary: gnucash-docs
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:11:11 -0500
Source: mmake
Binary: mmake
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.3-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:16 -0500
Source: miscfiles
Binary: miscfiles
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.4.2.dfsg.1-8
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:18:41 -0500
Source: mmorph
Binary: mmorph
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.3.4.2-10
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:25:10 -0500
Source: psrip
Binary: psrip
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.3-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:41:39 -0500
Source: slib
Binary: slib
Architecture: source all
Version: 3a5-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:08:12 -0500
Source: scm
Binary: libscm-dev scm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e4-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:15:05 -0500
Source: scm
Binary: libscm-dev scm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e4-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:34:58 -0500
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash-common gnucash
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.3-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:15:21 -0700
Source: gnucash
Binary: gnucash-common gnucash
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.2.2-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:11:04 -0700
Source: lilypond
Binary: lilypond-data lilypond-doc lilypond
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 2.10.33-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:10:06 -0800
Source: scm
Binary: scm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 5e4-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 1583 matches
Mail list logo
