in the same direction
to provide the best possible OS, we will continue to coast, squandering
efforts on preserving users' ability to make choices about things that no
user should ever be asked to care about.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
From comments made by various GNOME upstream developers on this, I think
they are being suitably cautious about avoiding scope creep where the
systemd dependencies are concerned. So
generators. But what would the
equivalent to /etc/init/failsafe.conf look like? I think this would be
very difficult to express in systemd language, yet it's altogether vital for
providing a boot that is both reliably ordered, and recoverable in the event
of problems.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:04:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Oh, sorry, I forgot to respond to this part.
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Of course if we were writing all our services according to best
practices, we wouldn't have to worry about this, as the service would
just
in, assuming your service is not actually in the
dependency path of the user logging in.
And what makes this work in the case where you *aren't* using
NetworkManager? I see no integration with ifupdown in the systemd package.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
; but in my
estimation, the flaws wrt system startup (which as far as I can see also
affect the systemd implementation) make it altogether unsuitable for any
services you're expecting to have started at boot, and we have deliberately
avoided its use in Ubuntu.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor
script which is already being
called.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:21:07AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 29 décembre 2013 à 01:10 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
If I'm not mistaken (no references to hand - sorry), systemd upstream has
claimed in the course of discussions on debian-devel that lazy activation
.
and/or are if there other features in upstart that you think will never
deliver the benefits one would naively expect from them?
Socket-based activation has never been a feature that upstart upstream has
promoted the use of.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
systemd's maintainers are also trying
to fix the problem with daemon automatically starting after
install. They would have used triggers otherwise.
What problem do you refer to here? Starting daemons automatically on
install is a policy-driven expectation, not a problem.
--
Steve Langasek
upstream delta is 441 lines. So this message is 25% of the
size of the delta that it describes. ;)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
for debuggability).
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 19 décembre 2013 à 12:35 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
The reasons for not upgrading to the current version of logind aren't to do
with any fragility of the existing glue code (the systemd-shim package
. As I said, I just think there's a trade-off between supporting
this and having confusing complexity exposed to the users.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 06:52:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: Quick upstart and systemd feature
comparison):
It would
the other. Do you agree? If so, perhaps we should table this
particular thread; we can always discuss the finer points of implementation
outside the TC decision.
Of course if you disagree, and feel this is a point that's relevant to the
TC decision, I'd like to understand why.
--
Steve Langasek
immediately so that we have a say in its direction between now and jessie,
instead of waiting until after jessie and finding ourselves with two more
years of entrenched bugs / design problems to sort out when integrating with
it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
system. I don't think it's the highest priority for implementing, but
it would have its uses and the init system is best placed to handle it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world
on non-Linux anyway, and is a much better choice than supporting
consolekit indefinitely for those ports.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
penalty for users who weren't
running upstart and thought that might be impolite.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
meeting to:
date -d 'Thu Dec 19 18:00:00 UTC 2013'
I'll update the calendar and IRC channel shortly.
Heh. I assume this is moved up with only three days notice to increase the
chances that I will again miss finishing my action before this month's
meeting. ;)
--
Steve Langasek
time
3. 27th same time
4. 28th same time
5. 29th same time
6. 30th same time
7. Some other time (I will do a doodle poll)
Any of these times look ok to me.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
mandated a security label.
I think that would be a great waste of the tech committee's time and
attention. When you start digging for security issues in prerelease code
that doesn't /warrant/ a CVE, this is no longer an apples-to-apples
comparison.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
of paths to system utilities, which a) is not portable between
distributions and b) contradicts Debian policy.
So systemd upstream may support separate /usr, but that doesn't change the
fact that there are still portability issues when one starts writing systemd
units.
--
Steve Langasek
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:11:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
For the TC decision, what kind of information are you looking for about
the plans, beyond the Ubuntu developers expect to need to address this
before upgrading from systemd
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:24:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Note that the original complaint in the samba upstream discussion was
about hard-coding of paths to system utilities, which a) is not portable
between distributions and b) contradicts
Ubuntu is using logind and is iirc maintained there by
Steve Langasek.
It's collectively maintained in Ubuntu; I do help with it, but Martin Pitt
does most of the routine maintenance for the systemd source package (udev,
logind).
Beside that, there are among others:
the timezoned is ensuring
, should Bastian
agree to that.
This was my concern with the technical implementation as well. I would be
happy with lvm2/systemd integration that used a static configuration instead
of requiring a generator.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 08:07:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
All distributions care about not having security issues in their code, but
that's not the same thing as actually doing the work to audit the code. In
practice
security design of either
sysvinit or upstart, namely that the user-accessible interfaces are kept as
small as possible to make them as auditable as possible.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
closely yet…?
:)
Unless you're offering to do a security audit of upstart, I don't think such
speculation changes anything.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
is the final resolution. I hereby call for a vote. There are
three options: Packard, Kern and FD.
I vote: Kern, Packard, FD.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
and forth interminably polishing our rhetoric, but I'd rather
turn our attention to actual questions that the other members of the TC find
relevant. ;)
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
one ballot option, or that the ballot option they propose must
be their first choice.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
, but possible.
Or if you don't need to worry about a non-racy startup for the service
you're testing, just omit the 'expect' stanza entirely.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]):
I agree. It would still require some fiddling to make 'expect stop' work
together with strace anyway, since upstart
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 06:49:34PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]):
I agree with all of the technical critiques here, I just don't see that this
relatively minor issue, which can
logind 204 and will hold at 204 until a correct
solution is known?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:20:12AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:41:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm surprised by this comment. Very little policy is actually encoded in
upstart's C code; in fact, the only policy I can think of offhand that is is
some basic
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:22:14PM +, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:20:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Right. Whichever init system we pick, I do expect the next step to be to
drop the requirement to maintain sysvinit backwards-compatibility;
While I'm not sure
how to structure that work if we haven't even decided yet if that
work will be necessary.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
that lets individual processes interface
with /sys/fs/cgroup, not an implementor of the userspace cgroup manager
service.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
be
straightforwardly worked out once we have a decision on the direction.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I don't think either of these are the right question. Even if we change
the default init system for jessie, because we *must* support backwards
compatibility with sysvinit for upgrades
as a
comaintainer without *explicit* consent is a sleazy bypass of our normal
(QA, TC) processes for changing a package's maintainership.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
amicably,
consensually and with no need for a TC vote.
Arno, Laurent: are either or both of you willing to take over the package as
maintainers? Should we close this bug report directly, or should it be
reassigned to wnpp as a RFA: or O: bug?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
)?
It still doesn't comply with policy 8.1. But I think that's a policy bug
and that this bug report should be referred over to the policy package; I
don't see anything further here that needs the technical committee's
involvement.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:27:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion. Have you overlooked
that the shlibs in the ntfs-3g package have been fixed by the maintainer
in unstable (as commented in bug #700677
?
Exactly. Because making package B uninstallable is much more
acceptable than making it unrunnable.
Neither is an acceptable way of handling Debian testing.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
it, is definitely buggy.
If you're happy with this patch I don't see any reason that the tech ctte
needs to be involved in any sort of formal ruling here, and the policy
language polishing question can be referred to debian-policy for discussion.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:45:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:57:46AM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On 16/02/13 05:36, Daniel Baumann wrote:
n 02/16/2013 03:40 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
have ntfs-3g Provides: libntfs-3gSOVER (substituted as appropriate
a critical
blocker for the release is a good way to make sure releases don't happen.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
How about this for a disposal:
I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks for
drafting this, Ian.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
is necessary
to force this particular remedy which, in any event, would be an imperfect
solution for the user-affecting bugs.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
I vote BCFA.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Steve Langasek
- Installing the gnome or the NM package must not cause the network to
break on upgrade, even temporarily, under any circumstances.
Is this a requirement for other network-providing packages as well
of
leaving an empty or commented-out file
Even setting aside the fact that taking a name from one network device and
giving it to another is largely full of kernel/udev race lulz, I don't see
any way that this scenario is something Debian should be concerned about
supporting.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:35:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:18:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
(Furthermore, I think the whole idea of needing custom desktop
infrastructure to tell apps whether they're online or not is silly;
you're online if you have
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 02:05:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I call for a vote on the following resolution to #573745.
I vote CBFA.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
team with comaintainers, not before.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
to them on automation.
F. Further Discussion.
I vote BAF.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga
advertised by evince via the mime system in squeeze.
Otherwise I have no objections here.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
, no?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
this would be an issue for the other packages that have dropped celt
support.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
, to be fixed for wheezy, regardless of whether NM is being
pulled in by default on upgrade?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
for a default Debian desktop, we might replace it
with a different one - perhaps one that the GNOME team would be willing to
maintain and keep synchronized with the existing package, but under a
different binary package name.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
preserved in wheezy.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
the logical dependency, they should not have to
install another free package to satisfy the annotated dependency. This
applies regardless of what kind of non-free it is.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I
I'm calling for votes on the below resolution on the Node/NodeJS question.
=== Resolution ===
The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace
collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that
compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:08:17PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
=== Resolution ===
The Technical Committee reaffirms the importance of preventing namespace
collisions for programs in the distribution, while recognizing that
compatibility with upstreams and with previous Debian releases is also
for feedback until 30 Jun 00:00:00 UTC before calling for a vote,
in case there are bugs above.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
transition plan for node and nodejs
2. Further discussion
I'll wait for feedback until 30 Jun 00:00:00 UTC before calling for a vote,
in case there are bugs above.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
grabbed the wrong bug number. The one I had /meant/ to take was for bug
#573745.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp
technical
path forward. If there are specific technical objections to the proposed
resolution, we should of course take those on board; but I don't think it
helps anything to waffle on the question of who is making the decision.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
Wednesdays, so the final agreed
time is tomorrow (date -d @1338483600), per
20120511001418.gk3...@rzlab.ucr.edu.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
not want collaboration from
his fellow DDs when it's you who continues to make it very clear that you
want him out.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
).
It looks like this works for me.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 09:49:11PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because
requests to rename axnode was met with either
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 10:50:21PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Steve Langasek [2012-05-04 09:49 -0700]:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:38:43AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael's approach of creating a compatibility symlink in postinst
during upgrades but not for new installs sounds better
an acceptable compromise under the circumstances.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
a different name.
Clint Byrum has nudged me about this (wearing his Ubuntu Server hat rather
than his shiny new Debian Developer hat) and I've agreed to approach node.js
upstream about a possible upstream rename. I'll report back to the TC what
I find out.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:58:59PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:23:21PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Best of luck. You know they've been asked twice before (once for Fedora,
once for Debian), right?
No, didn't know that. Were
that
this is not what our DPLs expected when expanding the scope of delegated
roles within the project.
Perhaps Ian would like to chime in here wearing his I wrote the
constitution hat. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
.
B. The Technical Committee declines to override the decision of the dpkg
maintainer to hold the dpkg multiarch implementation until he can
finish code review.
C. Further discussion.
I vote ACB.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian
the question of requiring debian/rules to be a
makefile or not.
I do think that there are lots of other reasons we want to be able to rely
on makefile behavior from debian/rules on the developer side - introspection
for the build-arch transition being a good example of this.
--
Steve Langasek
don't think dpkg should be exposing
such an interface at all. We don't want to encourage the use of makefile
includes for such things.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
they're no longer needed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
to assume that all build flags can be delimited
by a space character?
Counterexample: -Wl,-z -Wl,defs
While this *can* also be written as -Wl,-z,defs, I'm not sure there's any
way to guarantee it will be?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:32:12PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Steve Langasek [2011-07-23 15:45 +0200]:
BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present
to be done with
the following cross-architecture dependency policy discussion by 6pm. If
I'm available I'm happy to participate, but I also don't know that a fourth
TC member will add anything to the discussion that three won't already
provide. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:14:55PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
arch-indep and arch-dep
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 05:22:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Russ Allbery writes (Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement
debian/rules build-arch):
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
addressed head
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:19:10PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Maybe we're going to end up with break n% of the archive as the
least-hated answer...
Well, I was planning on voting break n% of the archive before FD
Hi Roger,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Steve Langasek
| 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders
for
| all packages in unstable and experimental
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules
-arch is not
supported, falling back to debian/rules build, without stirring up the old
arguments about whether we want to keep Policy 4.9.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu
approach,
It is the most error-prone.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
ok for you to orphan them directly by filing bugs against the
'wnpp' pseudopackage.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
. For my part, I expect that Alexander's orphaning will
be sufficient.
He also said that he doesn't use Debian anymore. Now he trolls in
debian-russian@ on the subject.
If he's abusing the mailing list, you can of course report this to
listmas...@lists.debian.org.
--
Steve Langasek
101 - 200 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
