I am answering my own message because I realise I failed to include an
important bit of info:
I am looking for a sponsor for Spout. It is a tiny black and white
caveshooter that runs on top of SDL,
As you can read in the relevant bug (#356492), a .deb package exists, and it
is DFSG-free,
Hi,
Goswin von Brederlow schrieb:
But does it have any use without the non-free firmware? Only then can
you close an eye and let it stay in main due to its other functions.
Yes: Loading free firmware. Whether such a thing exists is largely
irrelevant; for the loader, it is just data, and we
Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Goswin von Brederlow schrieb:
But does it have any use without the non-free firmware? Only then can
you close an eye and let it stay in main due to its other functions.
Yes: Loading free firmware. Whether such a thing exists is largely
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A downloader package is a bit of grey area; much like a typical
contrib package, it has some more-or-less hardcoded string that
points to non-free data; it does not, however, depend on anything
outside of main to function (since main is
This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said:
Contrib is effectively meant for wrapper on non-free stuff. But contrib is
really needed when the wrapper stuff is the *main purpose* of the package.
In the case concerning us, we have 10 lines of DFSG-free code that can be
used to download
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Stephen Gran wrote:
Can't you just ship those ten lines in contrib, and the rest in main?
This may be archive bloat, but surely it's arch:all, so that minimizes
the bloat at least. I am not over fond of the freer-than-free holy
wars, but it does seem like this script is
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, I go even further: I wish that the package use a low-priority
debconf question (defaulting to do not download) to let the user execute
the wrapper at installation time. Of course, the question should warn the
user that he's about to download
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:26:56PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
No, it wasn't. As long as I can remember, packages which contained a
small part of contrib material, which was not crucial for the function
of the package as a whole, can go to main. Look at the policy:
, 2.2.1 The main
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:26:56PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
No, it wasn't. As long as I can remember, packages which contained a
small part of contrib material, which was not crucial for the function
of the package as a whole, can go to main. Look at
Hi all!
This email is motivated by an effective current issue, as detailed below, but
I'm seeing myself in similar situations quite often.
There is a package, which isn't officially orphaned, but the maintainer is
neither responding to bug reports nor to mails to her @d.o address. Even though
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:22PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
Hi all!
This email is motivated by an effective current issue, as detailed below, but
I'm seeing myself in similar situations quite often.
There is a package, which isn't officially orphaned, but the maintainer is
neither
Michael Tautschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be filex
in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's can
NMU. If that is true, then sponsored NMU are not allowed.
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael Tautschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be
filex in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's
can
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be
filex in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's
can NMU. If that is true, then sponsored NMU are not allowed. However,
tradition
This one time, at band camp, Frank Küster said:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't you just ship those ten lines in contrib, and the rest in main?
This may be archive bloat, but surely it's arch:all, so that minimizes
the bloat at least. I am not over fond of the freer-than-free
Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 1146961412 past the epoch, Roger Leigh wrote:
Note that programming GTK+ in C is not C programming,
it's GObject programming. This requires that you know
not only about how objects are implemented on a
fundamental level by the C++ compiler (...), but
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from
sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken
one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the uploader, not with the
Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from
sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken
one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the
As I've been told a few hours ago, I hereby request a sponsor for an NMU of
gcc-h8300-hms.
The files are available from http://www.model.in.tum.de/~tautschn/debian/ ; the
according patch has been posted to the BTS, #328244
Cheers,
Michael
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit*
developers from sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a
sponsored NMU is a broken one, because responsibility for the
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:04:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit*
developers from sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
The difference being that most of the time when someone sponsors an NMU,
they're effectively shirking their own duty to follow up on the package and
ensure that the NMU hasn't introduced any regressions. Often, they're
shirking their duty to even
Hi,
The distributed-net package was orphaned by it's maintainer a few weeks
ago, and I have decided to adopt it. I have prepared a new version of
the package, and would now like to request that someone sponsor it.
The short and long descriptions below were taken from the control file
for
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:48:06PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
IMHO we really should have a global NMU blacklist (no, never per-package.
That way lies lameness) which we could ask the ctte to place maintainers in
for a few months when someone does the NMU-and-forget routine and
24 matches
Mail list logo
