On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 01:18 +0200, francesco namuri wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnofract4d.
Package name: gnofract4d
Version : 3.3-1
Upstream Author : Tim Whidbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL :
Hi Mentors,
Is there some agreed abbreviation that can be used in the subject of
messages posted on debian-mentors to indicate that a mentor intends to
sponsor a package? If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
Regards,
Bart Martens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Hi Bart,
* Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-06 11:14]:
Is there some agreed abbreviation that can be used in the subject of
messages posted on debian-mentors to indicate that a mentor intends to
sponsor a package?
No.
If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
Sounds good!
Kind
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:20:10PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
Would a 'review without ITS' be done by a simple reply to the RFS
without a subject marking?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
* Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-06 12:51]:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:20:10PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
Would a 'review without ITS' be done by a simple reply to the RFS
without a subject marking?
Yes I think so, this
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 05:48 -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 12:20:10PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
If not, could ITS = intent to sponsor work?
Would a 'review without ITS' be done by a simple reply to the RFS
without a subject marking?
Yes, I wasn't clear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Mentors,
I'm trying to partecipate to the Utnubu [1] project, which aims at providing
Debian with packages already available for *buntu. So, reading the list of
missing packages [2], I've successfully packaged nanoweb.
There already is a bug open
On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:43:37 +0200
David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to partecipate to the Utnubu [1] project, which aims at providing
Debian with packages already available for *buntu. So, reading the list of
missing packages [2], I've successfully packaged nanoweb.
There
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 17:43 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
I've successfully packaged nanoweb.
There already is a bug open [3], but if you read over there, there are (were)
some copyright issues. In fact, the program itself is released under GPLv2
(and
later), while it is based on PHP, which is
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
utterly abominable, an example of total programming putrifaction. I
expect this code to be so inherently
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:22:34PM -0300, Alex Queiroz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
utterly abominable,
Hi,
On Sonntag, 6. Mai 2007, Alex Queiroz wrote:
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP
is utterly abominable, an example of total programming
On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:22:34 -0300
Alex Queiroz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
utterly abominable, an
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 13:22 -0300, Alex Queiroz wrote:
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also share Vorlon's opinion about the package as a whole:
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
utterly abominable, an example of total
On Sunday 6 May 2007 17:43, David Paleino wrote:
Now, as Steve Langasek pointed out in that bug report:
PHP is GPL-incompatible. You cannot distribute GPL software together with
GPL-incompatible software that it depends on without a license exemption
from the copyright holder of the GPL
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 18:22, Alex Queiroz wrote:
This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages
now?
Challenging whether some software would be an asset to Debian is not
cersorship by any definition of the word,
On Sunday 6 May 2007 18:22, Alex Queiroz wrote:
This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages
now?
Challenging whether some software would be an asset to Debian is not
cersorship by any definition of the word, but voicing an opinion. I'm glad
that that is possible
On Sun, 6 May 2007 13:46:21 -0300
Alex Queiroz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming languages
now?
Challenging whether some software would be an asset to Debian is not
cersorship by any definition of the word, but voicing an opinion. I'm
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't about PHP, it isn't about copyright, it is simply a bad
package that was badly thought out and badly implemented with the wrong
design in mind. The idea of a web server written in PHP is ludicrous.
Debian should and does
Hello,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't about PHP, it isn't about copyright, it is simply a bad
package that was badly thought out and badly implemented with the wrong
design in mind. The idea of a web server written in PHP is ludicrous.
In my very personal
2007/5/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would have thought that Steve's statement on that is clear - I
wouldn't expect many sponsors to disagree. The question is whether the
package merely uses PHP or whether it links into PHP. From my reading
of the bug report, nanoweb is not merely a PHP
2007/5/6, Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 6. Mai 2007, Alex Queiroz wrote:
This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming
languages now?
No, but it is already a lot of work to provide security support for
the php apps in Debian. Ubuntu's popcon shows an
2007/5/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If Ubuntu want nanoweb they are welcome to it. I see no reason to haul
this excuse of a package into Debian. I write PHP, I like PHP - within
limits - but I can honestly say I have never come across a more
inappropriate use of PHP than nanoweb. What's
2007/5/6, David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mentors,
...
Ok, ok. Sorry for having generated such a huge thread. What I was
looking for were just opinions of DDs, who have, for sure, much more
experience than me about packages and software that should be in
Debian.
I'm not intentioned
2007/5/6, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:23, David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of that on the Internet. I admit that this
is not enough reason to package it though.
Right. The
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 20:20 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
2007/5/6, Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
On Sonntag, 6. Mai 2007, Alex Queiroz wrote:
This is a very sad opinion. Is Debian censoring programming
languages now?
No, but it is already a lot of work to provide
On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:38:38 -0300
Alex Queiroz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't about PHP, it isn't about copyright, it is simply a bad
package that was badly thought out and badly implemented with the wrong
design in mind.
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:20, David Paleino wrote:
I think the situation in Ubuntu is different because there is no real
security support for universe (please correct me if I am wrong).
Universe corresponds to? Contrib?
There's no direct matching here. While in Debian all software in main is
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:23, David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of that on the Internet. I admit that this
is not enough reason to package it though.
Right. The main question for me that is not answered here
On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:29:31 +0200
David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, ok. Sorry for having generated such a huge thread.
Don't worry about it. Rants can be fun!
;-)
Nothing in the thread reflects on you, only on the proposed package.
I'm not intentioned anymore in packaging it,
Hallo,
On 5/6/07, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? It flows inexorably from the acknowledged fact that PHP is
afflicted with more than a fair share of security bugs, allied to the
fact that a webserver is a particularly BAD place to have a package
that is known to be very vulnerable
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:23, David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of that on the Internet. I admit that this
is not
On 06/05/07, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:23, David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of
David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of that on the Internet. I admit that this
is not enough reason to package it though.
d-i contains a web server written in shell, fwiw.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:40:37PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
If Ubuntu want nanoweb they are welcome to it. I see no reason to haul
this excuse of a package into Debian. I write PHP, I like PHP - within
limits - but I can honestly say I have never come across a more
inappropriate use of PHP
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 17:43, David Paleino wrote:
Now, as Steve Langasek pointed out in that bug report:
PHP is GPL-incompatible. You cannot distribute GPL software together with
GPL-incompatible software that it depends on
On 06/05/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:40:37PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
If Ubuntu want nanoweb they are welcome to it. I see no reason to haul
this excuse of a package into Debian. I write PHP, I like PHP - within
limits - but I can honestly say I
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:55:58PM -0500, Raphael wrote:
On 06/05/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:40:37PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
If Ubuntu want nanoweb they are welcome to it. I see no reason to haul
this excuse of a package into Debian. I write
On Sunday 06 May 2007 20:49, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sunday 6 May 2007 20:23, David Paleino wrote:
Why?
And a web server written in awk, then? Is that of any real-world use?
I've seen implementations of
Heya,
In addition, the concept of a webserver written entirely in PHP is
utterly abominable, an example of total programming putrifaction. I
expect this code to be so inherently unmaintainable that its very
presence would warrant an RC bug. As a DD and as a user of PHP, I
would ask that
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomeradio.
Package name: gnomeradio
Version : 1.7-1
Upstream Author : Jörgen Scheibengruber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL : http://www.wh-hms.uni-ulm.de/~mfcn/gnomeradio/
License : GPL
Section :
41 matches
Mail list logo
