On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The easiest way to avoid that problem would be to require a new field in
the package DM-Upload: okay to allow DM uploads, as well as an entry
in the Maintainer:/Uploaders: field. [...]
Agreed. However, you need to check that
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
The proposal was to check based the Maintainer/Uploader field of the
previous .dsc upload to unstable/experimental, and presumably doing the
same thing for the DM-Upload-Allowed: field (or whatever it's called).
(This doesn't address the case of
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs
cannot be hidden by closing them before I
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- then I am granted the right to help fixing the bug I found a few
months ago
No, you don't have to do that to help fix the bug. To help fix the bug,
all you have to do is post a patch on the bug log.
Which is what he did.
If you think the
So here was my practical conclusion: I did send a bug report, useless
during months, and that bug report was used to argue that the package
is
broken and unkaintained and to remove it. Conclusion: reporting on a
un-maintained package is something dangerous.
Hm, what was the severity of the
Benjamin BAYART wrote:
Another case come back in my mind: pandora. Those fonts have been
available with TeX since years and years. They have been removed from
Debian/main for good reasons (wrong license: free for non commercial use).
In my mind, in such a case, it should be mandatory to move
Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here was my practical conclusion: I did send a bug report, useless
during months, and that bug report was used to argue that the package
is
broken and unkaintained and to remove it. Conclusion: reporting on a
un-maintained package is something
* Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 13:14]:
If you read back to the DM proposal, it is clearly stated that a DM is
not allowed to upload a NEW package. So, the approach is not wanting to
packageupload anything but a given package.
But licenses are nothing fixed. Upstream can decide to
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:53 +0200, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
Le Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:50:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
- first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
crazy licenses in a language that is not
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
To the DM proposers: Does the suggestion in the current form mean that I
will no longer be allowed to sponser anyone out of fear he might become
DM and thus said he is capable enough to maintain this type of package.
If you
For me, I do want to be part of Debian anymore does not coincide with
I
want to upload to Debian. Someone who uploads to Debian *is* part of
the
community.
I see no reason to vote for a proposal that facilitates people who
explicitly
denounce Debian to be granted rights to the same
I do not think that this is a fair characterisation of what is required
of
being a DD. There's no requirement to read any list except
debian-devel-announce, which has less than one post per day on average.
There's no need to get involved in licensing discussions, except of
course
when
Benjamin,
it seems to me that neither NM nor DM is suited for you. Reporting broken
stuff and optionally attaching a patch later or at the same time is the
way to go. In case of TeX packages, there's the TeX maintainer team that
will probably take care of your fix. In case of other packages,
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
If you are _that_ interested in helping the TeX packaging team, join
it, I think it's co-maintained on alioth, you just need an alioth
account, it takes a few minutes to have one, and you'll have to ask the
pkg-tex people to give you commits rights, which should do
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 04:48:22PM +0200, Benjamin BAYART wrote:
That is probably a good way to shape a young contributor begginning in
free software contributions. I would probably have done that, 15 years
ago. But nowadays, I'm involved in a lot of projects, some are of
importance, at least
* Benjamin BAYART [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070624 17:11]:
Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
- first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
crazy licenses in a language that is not mine
There is hardly any package thinkable, where one can be sure the
Yes. So, the right solution if I want to help is:
- first I spend a lot of time proving that I'm skilled enough to read
crazy licenses in a language that is not mine
No, you only have to do this if you want to package software and upload
it into the archive without review.
- then I spend
19 matches
Mail list logo
