Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 01:46:53PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > I attempted to get gtk-gnutella into volatile but it isn't possible. > Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav > and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off > rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. That's disappointing, but thanks for trying. > Feel free to contact me off-line if you require assistance rebuilding > gtk-gnutella so that it is functional for you once again. Myself I have no problems, I just thought it would be more useful to "the general public" if it was in volatile. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
Hi, * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 09:44]: > [ I've removed 340462 from further follow-ups ] just do what you promise to do. > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:08:58AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:03]: > > > Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav > > > and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off > > > rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. > > > > I would prefer if you stop telling lies about volatile. > > You can believe whatever you want to believe. > > I've done my analysis; I posted it publically. > > If there were obvious flaws in it, I'm sure you would have jumped upon > them. From the lack of any kind of response I have to assume I have > things correct. You mean, I need to read and answer each and every mail? I hoped that you might get more cooled down and reasonable again. I'm sorry that I was wrong. > You seem offended that that I'm pointing out that the idea is poorly > executed upon. No. I just don't like it when you tell lies. You can tell your opinion where you want, but you must not say untrue statements and present them as facts. > There are a couple of ways to react: > > - move to rectify the (perceived or actual) problem > > - ignore things and hope I'll go away > > - respond with (attempted) insults > > You've done the last of those, I'm hopeful that you'll find the first > one more profitable and rewarding. As most of the readers might have noticed, we (the volatile team) usually respond quite fast to good ideas, like the one with locales (which was discussed before on IRC, and Felipe Augusto already wrote the summary from the volatile-teams point of view, so there was no reason for me to answer directly). However, if there is a person who can't take a No as a No, and decides to rather whine around, and start to tell lies, I have to take action. Not that I like that most, but well, I can stand that. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
Hello Andreas, [ I've removed 340462 from further follow-ups ] On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:08:58AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:03]: > > Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav > > and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off > > rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. > > I would prefer if you stop telling lies about volatile. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I've done my analysis; I posted it publically. If there were obvious flaws in it, I'm sure you would have jumped upon them. From the lack of any kind of response I have to assume I have things correct. > You behave like you are a kid in a sand-box and now want to destroy > someones else sand-castle because it looks nicer than yours. This is > *not* the way things should work in Debian. That analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. What I'm doing is pointing out that volatile is a good idea executed poorly -- the execution is poor enough that there is no inherent value in volatile at this time. You seem offended that that I'm pointing out that the idea is poorly executed upon. There are a couple of ways to react: - move to rectify the (perceived or actual) problem - ignore things and hope I'll go away - respond with (attempted) insults You've done the last of those, I'm hopeful that you'll find the first one more profitable and rewarding. Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
* Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:03]: > Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav > and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off > rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. I would prefer if you stop telling lies about volatile. You behave like you are a kid in a sand-box and now want to destroy someones else sand-castle because it looks nicer than yours. This is *not* the way things should work in Debian. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:53:13PM +, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > Package: gtk-gnutella > Version: 0.95-3 > Severity: wishlist > > Hi > > gnutella does not allow versions older then a certain age (6 months?) to > be on the network so that they don't hurt the network too much. This is > about to happen for the version in sarge. > > Is it possible to upload a new version to the volatile archive so that > it can still be used on sarge? Hi Floris, I attempted to get gtk-gnutella into volatile but it isn't possible. Considering that volatile only useful package is (potentially) clamav and that only if you are disconnected I'd say you are better off rebuilding the package yourself and never using volatile. Feel free to contact me off-line if you require assistance rebuilding gtk-gnutella so that it is functional for you once again. Cheers, Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340462: gtk-gnutella: version in stable is too old for the network - upload to volatile
Package: gtk-gnutella Version: 0.95-3 Severity: wishlist Hi gnutella does not allow versions older then a certain age (6 months?) to be on the network so that they don't hurt the network too much. This is about to happen for the version in sarge. Is it possible to upload a new version to the volatile archive so that it can still be used on sarge? Thanks Floris -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-laurie2.1.0 Locale: LANG=en_GB.ISO-8859-15, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.ISO-8859-15 (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Versions of packages gtk-gnutella depends on: ii libatk1.0-01.8.0-4 The ATK accessibility toolkit ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libglib2.0-0 2.6.4-1 The GLib library of C routines ii libgtk2.0-02.6.4-3 The GTK+ graphical user interface ii libpango1.0-0 1.8.1-1 Layout and rendering of internatio ii libxml22.6.16-7 GNOME XML library ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4.sarge.2 compression library - runtime -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
